Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why both presidential candidates are no good

  1. Sep 24, 2008 #1
    I truly believe in this title. Both candidates promise a solution to a problem they have little control over. What I am talking about is the market, they think their policy changes will make a serious change. In reality it would do very little, I won't get into the specifics here but an example is with oil. This is a limited resource no matter what they do they can't change that until physicists and Engineers are able to find a new source of energy (fusion?) there is not much to be said. Sure alternatives are out there, but let's be honest if they were as effective as oil they would have been accepted. The reality of the situation is one candidate wants to improve trade relations while limiting individual rights (abortion) the other wants to limit free trade while upholding a welfare state (taxes, welfare, etc). What is the alternative in this bipartisan party nation, where are the options? This is a serious question, why don't we have more options? We have exponentially more options in a supermarket, surely something as important as a presidential election should have more than two candidates.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 24, 2008 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    McCain, and the Republicans in general, have consistently opposed efforts to end our reliance on oil. Obama is dedicated to ending that dependence. Obama can't solve the problem through policy, but he can enact policy that will help scientists, engineers, and entrepreurs to solve the problem. Of course this will be much more difficult now that the Republicans have destroyed the economy.

    McCain wants to "drill right here, right now" [apparently wherever he happens to be standing].

    Even the oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens, says "drill drill drill", but "we can't drill our way out of this problem". So don't be fooled by more Republican lies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2008
  4. Sep 24, 2008 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For the price of the Iraq war, and esp now if we include this bailout, we likely could have ended our dependence on foreign oil. And for that matter, we might have ended our addiction to oil altogether.

    Think about it. Think about the significance of that statement. Imagine where we could be today if we had listened to Obama in 2002. Don't let this abomination and betrayal of the country by Bush and his Republicans go unpunished.

    - Barack Obama, October, 2002
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2008
  5. Sep 24, 2008 #4
    Ralph Nader is running. So is Bob Barr. Here are some more. The problem is not that there aren't other choices. The problem is that people like you won't vote for them. A supermarket won't continue to shelve items that you won't buy either.

    Prove me wrong. Vote for the candidate that you like, not against the candidate you don't like. You are not voting for the one you think will win, you are voting for the one you want to win.
     
  6. Sep 24, 2008 #5
    Obama might want to pull our troops from IRaq, but he still wants to sustained the American empire across the world. Meaning he wants to stick his nose in the political affairs of other countries, just like mccain instead of proposing a foreign policy based only on Free trade. He has already stated that he wants to aid Georgia and "talk with Iran". He has also flipped flopped on how much of a threat Iran is to the national security of the United states: check out this clip.

    Until both candidates realized that its was primarily our foreign policy of the past 50 years that evoke the terrorists attacks on 9/11 and hatred for United in Middle eastern countries, my vote will go to Ron Paul, whether he is running for president or not.

    Oh and stop with this silly game of "Democrats good, republicans bad" and vice versa. Bottomline : Democrats aren't really anti-war and republicans aren't really economically conservatives so stopped given them your vote and start voting for an politician who general cares for the welfare of the people. The vietnam war and the Iran hostage crisis occured during the Johnson and Carter adminstrations, both men who were democrat ; During the Clinton adminstrations, we bombed Serbia. And of course , you all know that Bush really isn't a really conservative since spending has increase greatly during his adminstration , but what you might not know is that the government has grown exponentially during the past 50 years and spending hasn't really stopped. Even during the Reagan adminstration , spending double and the deficit went from 200 billion dollars in 1980 to 1 trillion dollars in 1989.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  7. Sep 24, 2008 #6
    Oh and we are not really running out of oil; Geologists claimed that we really haven't tapped all of the Earth's natural resources and we have at least 100 years worth supply of oil. There is a big oil reserve in Canada, but the reason why oil drillers won't go there is because it would be more expensive to manufaucture than crude oil found in the Middle East.

    I don't like Obama's energy policy on Ethanol , because he wants taxpayers to subsidize the production and distribution of ethanol; He doesn't realized that ethanol isn't environmentally friendly, would cost a lot more than gasoline, and only would provide 12 percent of our energy needs.
     
  8. Sep 24, 2008 #7

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Obama's Evolving Ethanol Rhetoric
    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/23/obamas_evolving_ethanol_rhetor.html
    By Alec MacGillis
    Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html

    Obama's position may be changing since the use of corn for ethanol competes with food needs. In some cases, the cost of corn has made ethanol uneconomical.


    McCain has been a proponent as well as opponent of ethanol, or rather government subsidies of ethanol and corn for ethanol.

    McCain's farm flip
    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm

    McCain, GOP senators call for easing of ethanol rules
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/05/gop.ethanol/index.html
     
  9. Sep 24, 2008 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here's the full version of the Obama-Biden energy plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

    While it mentions "biofuels" 7 times, it mentions "ethanol" exactly once, and that one time it says:

    "Advances in biofuels including cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol and other technologies that produce synthetic petroleum from sustainable feedstocks offer tremendous potential to break our addiction to oil. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work to ensure that these clean alternative fuels are developed and incorporated into our national supply as soon as possible."

    From my rather poor understanding of the field of biofuels, "cellulosic" ethanol does offer the best promise among ethanol-based ideas.
     
  10. Sep 24, 2008 #9

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I believe cellulose needs to be 'digested' or somehow converted to sugar, in order for the sugar to be 'fermented' into alcohol.

    Use of cellulose would be ideal since it is not food stuff, but biomass/agricultural waste.

    http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm
     
  11. Sep 24, 2008 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Democrats better, Republicans worse.

    As for foreign policy, Obama made a very brave statement at a time when dissent was seen as unpatriotic. If we had listened to Obama, we would be 4000 US lives and a trillion dollars richer.

    After eight years of Bush, don't even try to tell me there is no difference between the two parties. That is complete and utter nonsense. I was once a staunch Republican, but the Republicans have betrayed every core principle that caused me to once value the party. And they have betrayed the country with their assault on the Constituion and their frivolous and reckless foreign policy.

    Also, over the years it has become apparent that the Democrats are usually right about the key issues, and the Republicans are usually wrong.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2008
  12. Sep 24, 2008 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I find it amazing that people accuse Obama of not taking a stand on issues. When the chips were down, when it counted the most, he not only proved that he is a man of substance, but he did so in clear and explicit terms. He boldly announced as fact what everyone in Washington was too fearful to consider - they were afraid of looking unpatriotic.
     
  13. Sep 24, 2008 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sorry, you're right: Gas is cheap and always will be; even with China and India coming online, and even though we have probably already seen peak production. And I see no problem with our reliance on oil from countries that hate us. No problems at all.

    Russia's attack on Georgia was probably the first shot fired in the new energy wars, [psssst, they wanted the gas pipeline] but no problem.
     
  14. Sep 24, 2008 #13
    What issues do you think Democrats are right on? I think that democrats are more consistent on their policies than republicans, but that alone doesn't make democrats better than republicans. Republicans are liberals , masquerading as conservatives in sheeps clothing. Neither candidates really have said that overspending will devalued the dollar greatly and we should probably switch back to the gold currency before the dollar becomes worthless.

    The republican party is not that bad. Remember , this is the party that historically fought to end slavery in the US, advocated for Women's suffrage in the 1930's , took a strong stance against spreading the US military into other countries around the world,most members of congress who passed the Civil rights act of 1964 were mostly republicans.

    You see, thats why don't affiliate myself with any political party. political parties don't follow their original political ideology that the party was created on. So in forty years, the democrat party my reflect the democrat party of the 1920's and 1930's, when some members of the KKK were members of the Democratic party.
     
  15. Sep 24, 2008 #14
    Why do you think we will be safe under a Democratic administration rather than a republican adminstration? Even though 9/11 occured in a republican administration, the democratic administration fail to catch Osama Bin laden the first time he attacked the world trade center.
    Must I remained you that the most failed US wars occurred during the time when the presidents were democrats? IT was a republican president that pulled us out of Vietnam.

    Obama is just going to removed all the troops that are now in Iraq and placed them in Afghanistan. He wants to deployed 7000 troops in Afghanistan. we already invaded one country; why in the world would we need to invade another? Concerning Iran, Obama hasn't ruled out a military strike as an option for dealing with IRan.

    He supports the Global policy act, which is an act where the US government attempts to reduced global poverty. We already owe loans to other countries, we might have a 2 trillion dollar deficit rather 1 trillion dollar deficit; how in the world our we going to reduced global poverty around the world when we cannot even resolved our own financial crisis at home?
     
  16. Sep 24, 2008 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Umm...we invaded two countries - only one of them for good reason. Which of the two have you forgotten about?
     
  17. Sep 24, 2008 #16

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    What are you talking about? Wars don't belong to political parties. FDR fought World War II. Wilson for WWI, Truman in the Korean War throttled McArthur from instigating war directly with China.

    The Viet Nam War came out of the Cold War's Manichean view of communism and Eisenhower's strategic belief in the domino theory.

    If your concern is war with Iran, then finally seeing the tail-lights of the machivellian Cheney-Rove-Bush war machine rumble into retirement in January, replaced by Obama might actually give you some hope.

    And if deficits are your concern - don't look now but those Clinton years surpluses and national debt reductions were slaughtered by the excesses of the past 8 years.
     
  18. Sep 24, 2008 #17
    I never said wars belong to poIlitical parties. I've only said in the past , conservatives have been more anti-war than liberals have. I am only arguing that just because we might have a president who is a democrat does not mean there will be less war.

    I read somewhere that we involved ourselves in the Vietnam War because we owed a favored to France. In Kennedy's inargural address, he stated that he will devote all of our resources to ensure that liberty was alive no matter what costs, even it that meant we had to risked the lives of our troops to ensure that democracy was spread to different parts of the planet. Woodrow wilson also wanted to spread democracy to other countries at the expense of taxpayer money .
     
  19. Sep 24, 2008 #18

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    You need to study history a bit more. Wilson was an Isolationist. That's a word you may want to look up before you go painting him as a activist war-monger.

    And how much more conservative do you have to be to be to the Right of the Bush-Cheney-Rove oligarchy and their "adventures" against those WMD's that just weren't there?

    And as to Viet Nam, that wasn't Kennedy bailing out the colonialist French. That was a holding action against the spread of Communism, a strategy promulgated by Eisenhower as a part of the early Cold War. I rather think that strategy has been proven by history to have been misguided, but I think you also have to view it in terms of a Nation that had so recently emerged from the WWII and the Korean Conflict.
     
  20. Sep 24, 2008 #19
    Cheney-Rove- and Bush are NOT real conservatives. They are Republicans! Real conservatives want limited government, to based a foreign policy on free trade and not intervene in the affairs of other countries, and reduced spending drastically.

    Woodrow Wilson was far from an isolationist. An isolationist would not be a proponent of the League of nations, created during his adminstration. He believed that its was America's duty to spread christianity and democracy into the Latin American countries. He wanted to helped the leaders of these latin american countries to preserved their republics. When there was a revolution taken place in Mexico, Wilson declared that the US should not recognized violent dictators.

    Woodrow Wilson, "We as americans will make the world safe for democracy!" http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2008
  21. Sep 24, 2008 #20

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Those about to be retired snowbirds are conservative enough for me.
    He was reelected as an Isolationist to keep the country out of the War in Europe. Your quote is from 1917 when the Nation was at war. McCain's flip-flopped on bigger things than that.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why both presidential candidates are no good
Loading...