I've not been on the site for a while, so forgive me if this subject has come up before. I write this from an English perspective, so if I'm ignorant of certain details, please forgive me!

It seems the US has finally found its two candidates- and furthermore they both seem to be good ones. Whilst I'm not a fan of the kind of personality politics that goes on in the US, what I envy is the apparent vigour of the American system, and the enthusiam it evokes in the American public.

In the aftermath of GWB's presidency ( he seems to have been a lame duck president for some time now) the US presidency seems destined for positive changes. I like both. Obama is certainly the more inspirational, but I have a great deal of respect for McCain, who takes a reasonable stance on environmental issues and economics, whilst taking what I see as a sensible approach to the mess of Iraq and Afganistan.

I would write more now, but I'm interested to see what you guys think of both, who you think will win, etc etc. Personally- whilst I think Obama has been excellent for US politics- it's nice to see a fairly centrist Republican ( I think) who offers a genuine alternative, without resorting to the power of the Evangelical right.

It seems a hell of a lot more interesting than dour Gordon and co.

Talk about a strongly polarizing subject, this one is a doozy.

This is a subject that will strongly seperate the the US members who read this site into 2 camps.

I will attempt to refrain from saying anything that will insult one side or the other. That being said I feel that many people in the US do NOT feel good about either candidate, I being one of them. It always comes down to a choice of 2 corrupt sons a bitches because of the corrupt 2 party system in the US.

One thing that is not being said in the news in place of the name calling is that both sides will have huge tax increases once they get into office. Both are going to open the borders to illegal immigration, in fact Obama is for giving the illegals drivers licenses (my problem is I have to pay taxes for that right, so should they).

Also neither one has a comprehensive plan for solving the fuel price issue.

You mention GWB as a lame duck president and I agree but whoever wins this election and inherits his problems could go down as one of the worst leaders in history due to the currnet mess this country is in.

Take President Hoover for example who was unfortunate enough to be president during the great depression. When FDR took over after him he did all the same things that Hoover did but he was there to take credit after the programs that Hoover put in place began to take affect. You will see a similar dynamic here except in reverse, Obama and Mccain will reap the harvest of the current regime.

Another problem is the lobbyists (primarily the oil companies), they will use their influence to keep things the way they are so they can keep gouging us for more $$$ and since whoever wins will owe them for winning the election they will allow it to happen. And all the candidates including Hillary had big $$$ 'donated" to them, those "donations" are not free and the american people will pay for it later.

_________________
sumigo is just an online handle, my real name is Brandon.

Interesting. Why do you say they're both corrupt? I sympathise with your reservations concerning 2-party systems, but many democracies are faced by the same issue (unless they use PR, which seems to me an even messier polling method), and sure 2 parties are better than one?
I think that compared to the antics of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or the military oligarchs in Burma (Myanmar), the US and most Western-democracies are doing pretty well. Let's not talk about Italy!

I can't comment on the US immigration situation, what I would say is that taxes in America are a lot lower than in Britain, and far lower than in Europe.

Fuel pricing. Heh. Bear in mind that UK oil prices are approximately double what they are in the US. That said, there's a lot more space to drive through in the States. However, I'm a firm believer in the West (and world as a whole) starting to wean themselves off oil dependency,with all the environmental and political rammifications that the current situation presents. So, ideally, I wouldn't encourage a reduction in taxes on petrol or the thing which has been mooted in the US about reducing prices briefly over the summer. That said, higher fuel prices can mean a lot of pain, particularly for the least well off, business and the economy as a whole. The sooner we start seriously investing in greener technologies and much higher fuel efficiency, the better. But if you (in a general rather than personal sense!) drive a Hummer or SUV purely for aesthetic rather than practical reasons, well, bite the bullet.

As for the rest of your points, I couldn't comment. I would say that a lot of people are probably considerably more hopeful than you! On the subject of lobbyists, Thank you for Smoking is an excellent film.

The corruption is inherant in the system not on a personal level. Both parties are corrupt, and whats worse they have people in this country conditioned to believe that it HAS to be either democrat or republican, therefore members of other parties (and there are many) are never given serious consideration.

Whats more is the money involved, which also relates to the topic of lobbying, both Clinton and Obama had huge campaign budgets. THat money didnt come falling out of the sky, it came from lobbyists, that means that the party or candidate that accepted that money will have to do something for that lobby at a later time. THis whole system is corrupt and both major parties are guilty of it.

As far as your point about gas being higher in Europe than in the US, that is true and I am not against fairness in that regard, however we are not used to the higher prices and therefore it is hitting our economy hard. At a time when the dollar is already weak, it is especially hard.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to ween off of petroleum products immediately, but it will never happen. Because the oil companies are too powerful to allow it, the technology is already there and has been for years to get well over 50 miles to the gallon but the oil companies will not allow it, especially now that they have more money and power than ever before with gas on the rise. Thus we are lucky to get just over 30 a gallon in the US.

Look at it this way, auto makers can make a car that has a GPS, 120 gig hard drive MP3 player, heck a full lap top with wi-fi in your dashboard with DVD player and LCD screen. They can make a cup holder that can keep your coffee warm and your diet coke cold by flipping a switch, can install seats that can massage your buttocks and neck, can install a motion detecter that can parallel park your car, a heads up display on your windshield (I could go on with this list) but they cant sell a car that gets over 38 miles to the gallon? Its total rubbish, and the oil companies are going to milk it until every last drop of oil is gone and they can get every penny out of us they can before they allow change.

I can guarantee you that as soon as they do the auto makers will have everything ready to go the very next day for fuel efficiency that we need now, why? Because they already have it. Especially smart makers like Toyota and Honda and Volkswagen etc. Stupid makers like Chrysler and GM will take longer to make the change.

By the way I drive a toyota corolla that gets 38 miles per gallon on highway, thats about the best you can get in the US.

But you are right in again in the regards that it could be worse (Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc.)

Yes Taxes are lower in the US than in Britain and Europe but we also have to pay for our own healthcare which is also rising dramatically and is rife with corruption. Illegal immigration also affects this because illegals can come here and have a baby and become instant US citizens (a baby born here is a US citizen and the mother as its legal guardian) who go on welfare, plus the hospital is not compensated for treating them and loses money which in turn drives up the costs for the people who actually pay. That is another hot issue that neither Mccain nor Obama are offering any concrete answers for. Healthcare is a big problem over here.

Thank you for Smoking is a great movie but one that is more important for this discussion is "Syriana", very enlightening.

_________________
sumigo is just an online handle, my real name is Brandon.

What you're suggesting is that the parties are forced to pander to special interests in order to attain the funding necessary to fuel the presidential race? I think, unfortunately, such is the way with many democracies. Traditionally the Labour party in the UK has been funded by the trade unions and the Conservatives by businesses or individuals. These are generalisations of course, but they are roughly true. Though such a system might leave the parties beholden to one group or another, what's the alternative? Perhaps it's different in the US, but in UK there is no widespread culture of giving to parties amongst the general public. The only alternative is to offer public funding for political parties, but aside from the fact that the 'average citizen' would rather not pay for political parties, there's a larger problem. If the state pays for political parties, how do we decide who gets how much, and on what basis can we deny the BNP (far right nationalists), communists, or the Miss Great Britain party funding?

I understand your point, but there don't seem to be many ways around the issue. Especially in America, which has a culture of much more expensive campaigns than over here.

I also thought that one of the reasons for Obama's success in raising money was the innovative way he's generated funds online through supporters contributing a few dollars. Perhaps this is the way forward?

I think part of the problem (particularly in the US) is a fondness for big cars. I've visited the States a few times, and I never see small cars, apart from maybe the odd mini. In general , people tend to favour much bigger cars, which can't help.

I think the move towards greater efficiency has to come from two directions. From below, in the sense that people move away from status cars or "gas-guzzlers" and from above, with government regulation and taxation on cars which emit more, are less fuel efficient etc. Ultimately I think purchasing power will have the greatest impact- it's just a shame that we might only reach that point when Oil prices become truly astronomic.

I know healthcare is an issue in the states. I saw Moores's Sicko, and though it was a polemic rather than a documentary, though its depiction of the UK healthcare system is, well, mostly fantasy, it is clear that the US does have a big healthcare problem. Maybe J.V. would have something to say on this, having presumably experienced both systems?

Regardless, I have to have hope for the future, I have to be sanguine about it! "Green" technologies are really starting to move forward, with government over here offering subsides for installing renewable energy systems, and companies beginning to cut down on packaging and all other kinds of waste.

What's the name of that independent candidate who's stood before?

Hey Red,

I just re-read both of my posts and I see now that I come across as pretty pessimistic, I apologize for that.

I am just really frustrated right now. Ive been doing some independant research on these topics and do not like what I have found.

There is a great fim documentary that I recommend all watch called "Crude Impact" that relates to these topics, also as I mentioned "Syriana" although a drama is still very compelling.

_________________
sumigo is just an online handle, my real name is Brandon.

No need to apologise! So who are you most likely to vote for, if you don't mind me asking? I assume you will vote?

Yes I am going to vote and I am going to vote for Obama because at the very least he will get us out of Iraq (or so he says), which I feel was a mistake from the beginning.

_________________
sumigo is just an online handle, my real name is Brandon.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11670343

Interesting article in the Economist about McCain, albeit a fairly short one.

hey guys,

i'm going to make this short because i can get fairly "passionate" about this type of subject.

first of all, "syriana" was a great movie inspired by a book, and damnit i forget the name of the book.

read "confessions of an economic hitman" by john perkins. its a tell-all documentary style book. john perkins was a high ranking, big corporation economist who played dual roles as a government agent of corruption, they literally called themselves economic hit-men (EHMs) half jokingly. unfortunately he is only one of many and this is the story of how u.s. corruption is spread world wide, not just internally.
learn whats really going on in the middle east, africa, and latin america. this book will change your views on the states.
thank god someone had the guts to come forward and tell us what is going on beyond the whitehouse, the senate, and wall street.

wow, did i say i was going to make this short? lol. i'm voting obama for the simple fact that he raised a ton of his campaign independantly. i'm sure he owes a favor or 2 though. i don't see him running the country into the ground to satisfy them though *cough GWB*.

mccain is now getting financial funding for his campaign from W. and that makes me suspcious about how adimant his stance on staying in iraq is.

**oh, and check out the "frag for free" combatarms.com online game website that pops up @ the bottom of the page every so often. become all you can be in the u.s. military. no disrespect to the men and women who risk their lives for our country**

speaking of US gov corruption...
I had an interesting conversation with 2 friends at dinner last night.
I'd recently watched the first 40 min of a 9-11 controversy movie called Loosechange (an .avi file on the web). It makes some interesting cases for what went down that day. The way the towers came down looks suspiciously like building demolition. Also, these are the only high rises to ever have gone down due to fire and such short duration fires. Other buildings have had upwards of two dozen floors fully engulfed for twenty plus hours, without the structures ever collapsing....interesting

As for who to vote for.....I'm mostly undecided but leaning away from anyone who's been in politics for a long time.

dont even get me started on Hillary.....heh

For a long time I've considered this political system hopelessly broken. If you ask me if I'm a Republican or Democrat, I'll answer that I'm Disgruntled. For too many decades now, both parties have enjoyed screwing us with half of our money while pointing their fingers at the other party. this sh** just isn't working anymore. Reps and Dems are just two slightly different flavors of the same screwing (of the american people).

I'd like to see a new party that stands for the American Tax Payer. We could even call it the ATP party. Its primary purpose would be to advance the living/working conditions of the americans who pay taxes. For too long we, as a country, have spent too much time talking about the rich and the poor, while the middle class tax payers have been getting screwed.

sorry about the ranting, I'm off my soap box now.

I'll leave you with a silly question.......
If the Miss America pageant gets to choose from 50 contestants, why does the presidential race only have two?

This a digression, but I saw a BBC doc that looked at the events of 9/11, particularly the so-called "3rd Tower". I've tried to find it on the original website so I could provide a link, but haven't been able to. It was a balanced documentary, but suffice to say, at the end there seemed to be a very strong case against there being any kind of conspiracy or corruption involved; I think most people would agree that they were fairly exceptional circumstances, whichever was you look at it.

I'm under the impression that McCain has elected for government funding, meaning he can only spend about $85 million dollars, as opposed to Obama being able to spend perhaps $200 million. From what I've seen so far, the campaign seems farily petty. For example, both candidates rambling on about tire pressures, and mocking each other? McCain handing out pumps, then apparently changing his mind, whilst Obama chooses to talk about this in a speech? I expected better, frankly. Whilst some aspects of US politics are attractive (the passion, the scale, perhaps even the glamour), the cult of personality and banal things like "Which First Lady has the best cookie recipe?" seem exceptionally petty. Similarly, the whole obsession with Vietnam records in past elections. Surely this is about the here and now, about policies not personalities?!

And what about this idea that Obama has been overexposed to this press, that there has been a little too much mania about him?

I watched the first 40 minutes of a documentary that can be found online under the name "loosechange.avi". I have no proof one way or the other, but its interesting how all three buildings came straight down. food for thought, I suppose... Dave

McCain's whole campaing is based on negativity, he did the same thing to Mitt Romney during the Republican primaries, now he is focusing on Obama. Romney at least used his own money to finance his campaign, something neither Mccain nor Obama can say.

Also during one of McCain's commercials during the olympic coverage he outright lies by saying Obama will raise taxes, but if you read Obama's tax plan he will lower taxes for 90 % of the population and raise taxes for people who make over $150,000 a year. Now wether either of them lives up to their promises is another matter, but going strictly on their proposed plans its a lie.

On the flip side McCain will lower taxes for people who make over $150,000 a year and raise taxes on people who make less than $70,000. McCain goes on to blast Obama for being a celebrity, but if you look around there are pictures of Mccain shaking hands with the likes of Steve Carrell and various professional athletes. I hate hypocrites, absolutely hate.

I will once again say that I dont like either candidate but at least Obama is not lying about the Mcainiac, something the psycho former POW cannot say.

WHich touches on another issue I have with Mccain, am I the only one who thinks he looks like serial killer? Because to me he does, he looks like hes one loud noise away from grabbing a dear rifle, finding a clock tower and making us PAY!!!! He has ghosts of his past in his eyes and looks like he is damaged goods to me.

I personally am sorry he was a POW and had to go through the things he had to go through, but for those same reasons I think he has bats in his belfry and SHOULD NOT BE LEADER OF THE USA. If anyone hits the red button in the Oval Office and launches us into a nuke war its this guy. he has already given warning signs to those who pay attention by saying things like "We may have to stay in Iraq for over 100 years." His position on Iran is also ominous.

_________________
sumigo is just an online handle, my real name is Brandon.

Before i start this rant let me say that I am generally not a conspiracy theorist, I dont think Elvis is still alive, I dont think we have a flying saucer hidden in Roswell, I dont think the moon landings were faked (not all of them anyway), and I dont think that Hitler is still alive in South America.

But my gut instincts tell me that 911 was a conspiracy plotted by Dick Cheney and the neo-conservtives. I have no proof but there are some very funny things about the whole event. The main thing I will go into is the pictures of the planes that hit the World Trade Center. According to records the 2 planes that hit the buildings were American Airlines flights, but if you look at the picures of the planes that hit the buildings and the pictures of every other american airlines airplane they do not match.

All American Airlines planes have blue striping, the company logo on the side and windows for the passengers, the pictures of the planes that hit WTC are all grey (no striping or logo), no windows (not just shuttered but absent) and the second one had what looked like a fuel pod on the bottom much like a refuelling jet for the military has, I am not saying these are irrefutable facts but they are fishy.

Now going on to the Pentagon, there are pictures of the Pentagon right after the crash that show books laying open without burn marks and file cabinets that have not a single scorch mark on them. The premise of the whole story told to us in regards to WTC is the building collapsed so quickly because the planes were full of Jet fuel, if that is the case then why didnt that happen at the pentagon? Where is the debris from the planes wings? A worker at the gas station that was under the flight path of whatever hit the Pentagon said it was a missile, not a plane, that man has since disappeared.

The thing about all of this is i cannot talk about it here in my home country (the USA) because people believe what was told to them hook line and sinker. If I get into any discussion with anyone here they shut me out as a conspiracy theorist and refuse to listen any more, then I get ridiculed. Even when I point out that the very people who I think are respnsible ( president and vice president or the oil companies or all of the above) had the most to gain from this, they still refuse to keep an open mind. Yet some of these same poeple will go on and on about a flying saucer in New Mexico.

Whats more far fetched? A government lying to its people to make a profit or a World War 2 era airplane shooting down a flying saucer and the human race reverse enginerring their technology?

Anyway I rarely talk about these things any more due to the reasons given above, but I still think the wool has been pulled over our eyes. Either way whether I am right or wrong, i would like to know more about what happened, the full story, the truth, because the stuff were are being told sounds fishy to me.

_________________
sumigo is just an online handle, my real name is Brandon.