Possibly Running as an Independent

Bruce, I'm amazed that you made a statement like this. You just declared that none of those countries are "socialist" because they are, in many cases, parliamentary democracies. Socialism isn't a form of government. It is an economic system. If you walk into Denmark and proudly claim that they are not socialist you'll likely get laughed at (in the nicest possible way). Your comment reveals that your opinions of socialism are, in fact, based upon nothing more than propaganda (I.e. Communism v. Democracy) rather than the fact that it is an economic system that is wholly compatible with virtually every form of government.

But, let's pretend you aren't completely wrong for a minute. What has any democratic candidate said in recent years that resembles something along the lines of North Korea and not, say, Canada?

My cousin died of cancer at home without ever seeing a doctor. He was a self-employed salesman for years. Never had health insurance. Became sick and blew threw his money on the diagnosis. He died without any medical care including pain meds. He was ineligible for Medicaid because the Tea Bag sucking government of his state made it virtually impossible for anyone to qualify for any form of government assistance unless they had a long term disability. Dying within six months didn't qualify and because he had earnings at the beginning of the year he opted to allow his cells to reproduce at an out of control pace his income was well above the threshold despite still putting him below the poverty line.

But, oh, your friend had to wait 2 days? That's a shame. Ask your friend how he would prefer not having any healthcare unless it is included as a fringe benefit and where continued use of that benefit is contingent upon continued employment. If your friend thinks that two days on a gurney is worse than dying of stomach cancer without pain meds, I'm going to have to call BS.

And yet, the billionaires are renouncing their citizenship to live in Singapore. So which way is it?

To answer your question, we aren't the only country that has immigration. And the door into the U.S. certainly doesn't swing one way. Many Americans opt to live overseas and live perfectly healthy and happy lives. The world isn't black and white and it certainly isn't a choice between living in the US or a gulag. There are plenty of places in between.

For starters, the constitution guarantees my personal property (firearms) for maintaining a well regulated militia. It was fairly recently that the Supreme Court decided that the "militia" referred to everyone and even more recent that it was decided that the rule wasn't absolute (no felons). But, as a student of history, I'm sure you were aware of that.

Second, gun crime went down in Australia. Pretty drastically. The only source that indicates otherwise is a pro-gun "research" group that receives millions of dollars from gun manufacturers.

You see, a major reason why gun control measures fail is because they are not uniformly enforced. We'd be much safer in New York if guns weren't so easily obtained in nearby Pennsylvania and driven over the border. Funny thing, you can't just drive more guns i to Australia. But, yeah, if you choose to believe in a fairy tale, I'm not going to stop you.

 

So in this wonderful land of freedom. Freedoms which both of us wore uinforms to defend, mind you, I'm what, a traitor for disagreeing with your opinion? I should just get out of the land where I was born, served in the military and continue to pay taxes unless I agree that our government should function exactly the way you believe?

And who exactly is trying to make us more like North Korea?

 

Perhaps you should revisit my comments Neuhaus. I’m not certain where, why, or how you associate that my remarks would relate to your further and overreached analogies and/or accusations…?

 

I commented on something that Australia is doing. You replied that "residence in Australia is an option" followed by asking me if I had ever considered that option. Now, perhaps you indeed did not intend to say "well, if you think Australia is so great, then go live in Australia" but drawing that inference is neither an overreached analogy nor an accusation.

If I work for a company and I say "Boy, we can change this process. You know, company Y does it like this." And someone responds "well, you should probably go work for company Y, then. Then you can do it that way." That's hardly a welcoming comment or an invitation to further exploring the topic of disagreement.

 

As I’ve already commented … you overstretched your analysis. Nevertheless, you can/will draw your own interpretation as to my intent.

 

It's the reality we have to accept. Voters do take into account likability. That is how Bush won a second term. John Kerry just wasn't likable. Putting that aside, Webb's performance in the debate was poor. Instead of doing what the other candidates did with interjecting whenever they wanted to make a point, he whined multiple times about not getting enough speaking time. When he did speak, his responses weren't convincing. I have very little in common with Republicans, but even I can identify a Republican who has performed well in a debate. I have more in common with Democrats, but I'm pro-life, own a few guns, and am happy about the new campus carry law in Texas. Still, Webb, who is a conservative Democrat, failed to impress me.

Many people confuse communism (a form of government) with socialism (an economic system). Anyone who says that the Democrats are proposing socialist programs that are much stronger than those in Canada and many European countries and that are more in line with those in China, Cuba, and North Korea, is being hyperbolic. By the way, China's economy is no longer all that socialist. They've been increasingly moving to privatization, and they don't even offer free college to everyone.

 

I remember both communism and socialism, unfortunately. I grew up under it. Not a good thing to anyone but those who were "in".

As far who moved how much, in what direction, I think the US Democratic Party moved into a territory they never been to, and advocating principles never seen on the US soil. The Republican Party, has move back to previously threaded areas.

Additionally, the Democratic Party appears to be lead from top down onto their new directions, while the Republican Party seems to be pushed by her members.

 

Maybe I am old fashioned, but I could not care if the person was hideous, boring, irksome, tedious, tiresome, wearisome, nauseating, obnoxious, drab, dull, monotonous, and such.

If they did what they promised, and they matched in majority of my key interests and positions, I vote for that person.

Unfortunately, all politicians so far have failed on the first part, no matter their orientation.

 

I, personally, never found either George W. Bush or Al Gore to be particularly likable characters. This was even more the case in 2000. But I ran into quite a few people (of all ages) who had made their decision based upon some sort of personality quirk or pet peeve that they found somewhat irksome. That's a weird way to choose a political figure, in my opinion. But it's also one of the challenges of having universal suffrage. Some people will provide thoughtful analysis and some will either fail to vote (very common) or vote like it is a high school popularity contest. Heck, maybe it would be the same if we restricted the vote to white male landowners again.

It's very difficult to feel as if your vote for president actually matters. I live in New York. New York's electoral votes are going blue whether I vote or not. And my vote, and the votes of my fellow Upstate New Yorkers, simply cannot put a dent in the will of the people of NYC. So, I'm going to vote. But I definitely feel like our congressional districts are weirdly drawn (to the detriment of the people) and electing a member of the house of representatives has a very different impact than electing an MP in a parliamentary democracy. So, I can sort of understand a person looking at their vote as being somewhat worthless and deciding to be a bit more flippant at the ballot booth.

 

I didn't find him likable either, but that's because I'm not a drinker. I came across a few people in real life and saw many commentators who talked about how Bush was the guy you could see yourself having a beer with. Gore and Kerry were seen as boring and not people the average American could relate to.

 

Indeed. But that fact also somewhat adds to his appeal to the "everyman."

He was less polished. He was seemingly more casual. He wasn't perfect. He acknowledged his imperfection. The man has two Ivy League degrees but that education never made it into his campaign. In fact, both he and Kerry attended Yale, and yet the Bush campaign not only capitalized on Kerry being "boring" but basically painted him as an egg-head with no sense of humor.

Not unlike Homer Simpson lambasting his opponent for being a senile old man (despite him only being two years older than Homer) when he ran for Sanitation Commissioner.

 

I concur.

Suffice to say that Bush won the personality contest. Consider how his camp was also able to portray Kerry as a coward who, somehow, fleeced the Navy into handing him three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star.

It's a pretty ballsy move to attack someone with a silver star when you rode out the exact same war in the Air National Guard without serving any time overseas. But he did it. And he wouldn't have been able to do it unless he was pretty sure that it would sit well with the public.