Obama vs Romney 2012 - CDC Election

[Ossi Vaananen]

Whoever "your people" are..

Always borrow in times of financial hurt? ROFL

Clinton tripled the national debt during his Presidency. George Bush added a few trillion more.. during times of non-financial hurt. That excuse doesn't fly.

It's hard to imagine you've ever watched a debate with Paul or Johnson or at least are playing dumb by acknowledging one facet of their monetary policy but ignoring the rest. If you haven't figured out what Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would cut, I'd advise Youtube and one of the countless caucus debates that cropped Ron Paul's and/or Gary Johnson's portions.

Sounds about right.. and I was being conservative.

Although that would be 2 years and 9 months roughly, giving Obama a full term with that rate is looking more like $22 trillion, which would mean Obama was President over a deficit increase of $12 trillion, in 8 years more than the entire US federal debt preceding him. Ridiculous.

[Buddhas Hand]

/\/\ Quite right. Financial collapse is a mathematical certainty and US will not be alone in experiencing it. When is the only unknown. How many more creative ways to go for Obama (or Romney) to capitalize the banks at the the expense of taxpayers?

Point 1: Believing there are meaningful differences between the major governing parties in US or Canada is suggestive of a politically immature mind.

On the truly important issues like immigration, wars, central banking, free trade (otherwise known as transferring manufacturing to the 3^rd world) and restricting domestic freedoms the so-called right and left are one and the same. Such few differences as there may be are usually confined to pre election rhetoric and when there is a ‘change’ in power it is still business as usual, media dressing notwithstanding.

Speaking from a strict (proper) interpretation of the US constitution nearly every sitting president beginning with Woodrow Wilson ought to have been tried, convicted, and shot for treason.

Point 2: Believing that casting a vote for the magic, affirmative action man is evidence of superior intelligence, as frequently suggested in the other thread, is naïve in the extreme. Here is

Alberta

The most notorious sterilization program in Canadian history was afforded via the passing of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928. From the years 1928 to 1972, sterilizations both compulsory and optional were performed on unfit individuals of varying ages and ethnicities. In total, over 2800 procedures were performed. Initially, the act only provisioned sterilizations where consent was given by the subject or legal guardian of the subject, depending on the competency of the individual scheduled to undergo the operation. The 1937 amendment to the act allowed for sterilizations to be carried out without consent in the case of those deemed mentally defective. Sterilization of individuals deemed mentally ill still required consent. At the end of World War II, while other eugenic sterilization programs were being phased out, Alberta continued on, even increasing the scope of eligibility for sterilizations. They continued until 1972, when approximately 50 persons were operated upon.

Targeted Sterilization?

The eugenic programs of Nazi Germany and the United States are strongly suggestive of racial, religious, and cultural targeting in their victims. Not surprisingly, a statistical study done on sterilization victims in Alberta has yielded data supporting the theory that its sterilization program was biased as well. Minors, because of their legal dependency on adults, were almost always assigned as "mental defectives", thus bypassing the parental consent requirement. Albertan aboriginals and métis, regardless of age, were also targeted. Aboriginal people represented only 2.5% of the general population in Alberta, but made up 6% of the institutionalized population. Towards the end of Alberta's sterilization program, aboriginals and métis made up 25% of the sterilizations performed. Furthermore, those of aboriginal ancestry were disproportionately assigned the "mentally deficient" rating, which denied them their legal rights and made them eligible to sterilization without consent. Women were another disproportionately represented group. Those women who were young, poor, and unmarried were thought to be at high risk for prostitution or at the very least promiscuity, activities suspected of breeding further immorality. If sterilized, it was conceded that although the behavior of the woman sterilized would not change, she would not be able to bear defective progeny.

Aftermath

Despite the inaccuracy of IQ testing and tremendous grey area in classifying the mentally defective, nearly 3000 people were rendered sterile by the Sexual Sterilization Act. The true nature of the act was revealed when Leilani Muir, a former inmate of the Michener Centre(also known as the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives, PTS), discovered in

British Columbia

The view concerning children in British Columbia at the turn of the century was highly polarized. Healthy children became increasingly elevated in status and made sacred, while at the same time, disabled children suffered the virtual abolition of their statuses as human: they were curses capable of nothing, and a drain on parental resources and sanity. As a result, medical professionals considered the death of a physically or mentally disabled child a joyous event, not because of the cessation of the child's suffering, but because of the relief of the parental burden of raising it, and the eventual societal burden of caring for it when it reached adulthood. The devaluing and eventual enmity to disabled life popularized rapidly, and spread from disabled children to disabled adults. Additionally, the substantial immigration rate of the 1910s and 1920s spurred a feeling of xenophobia among the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, educated elite of British Columbia. Slavic immigrants in particular were accused of having very high incidence of undesired characteristics, all of which can be attributed to culture shock and language barriers. The aversion to "abnormal" or "strange" people coupled with the perceived societal drain caused by immigrants, the deformed, mentally ill, and mentally disabled created an environment conducive to the enactment of a sexual sterilization act. Indeed, the prospect of improving Canada's genetic stock by breeding out unwanted elements was looked upon with enthusiasm.

It is no surprise that in July 1933, 5 years after Alberta, British Columbia passed its own sexual sterilization act. A three member Eugenics Board comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, and a judge was given the duty of authorizing the sterilization of any institutionalized person who was deemed capable of propagating undesirable social characteristics. Since such social problems as criminality, prostitution, and addiction/alcoholism were believed to have a biological (and thus heritable) cause, almost any institutionalized individual could be found eligible, in one way or another. Although the records concerning BC's Sexual Sterilization Act were lost or destroyed, it is thought that only a few hundred individuals were operated upon before the law was silently repealed in 1973.

That sterilization laws were only enacted in Alberta and B.C., and that they endured so long is strange, but not outright perplexing. The religious makeup of the Western provinces was primarily Protestant, in contrast with the strong Catholic presence in Eastern Canada. Pope Pius XI of the Catholic Church denounced surgical intervention in reproductive matters, making any Catholic stronghold (such as Ontario or Quebec) an inhospitable place to lobby for eugenic sterilization of the disabled. The introduction of progressive, left-leaning governments in Alberta and B.C. also had a hand in strengthening eugenic legislation. Left-leaning parties were eager to embrace new ideas, especially those that held a promise of economic turnaround. Additionally, it has been suggested that a Westernist attitude of self reliance resulted in the provinces hanging on to these policies in order to "stick to their guns" and appear strong and defiant in the face of the East.

Aftermath

After seeing a precendent set by Leilani Muir in her successful legal action agasint the government of Alberta, the British Columbia Public Guardian and Trustee filed similar lawsuits to protect the legal rights of the sterilized disabled. Thus far, 18 lawsuits have been filed against the government of British Columbia regarding the sterilization act. The suits allege that the sterilizations were involuntary, non-therapeutic, and that they were done for the convenience of the hospital. These lawsuits were filed in 2001, and since, several of the plaintiffs have died. In 2003, the cases were dismissed. Early in 2005, however, that judgement was overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In December of 2005, nine sterilized women were awarded compensation in an out-of-court settlement, totalling $450,000CDN ($50,000CDN per plaintiff).

Beyond Alberta and British Columbia

Although eugenic sterilization was never instituted in Ontario, the issue saw considerable debate concurrent with the enactment of sterilization laws in Alberta and British Columbia. The formation of the Eugenics Society of Canada (ESC) in 1930 sought to organize supporters of eugenics into a coherent group in order to make their lobbying to government more effective. Founded in Ontario, the ESC boasted a large number of physicians in its ranks, including Clarence Hincks, one of the most devoted proponents of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act. Other notable members included the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario Dr. H. A. Bruce, and eminent psychiatrist Clarence B. Farrar, who had been head of the Toronto Psychiatric Hospital since 1925. As social traits like criminality and promiscuity began to edge off the list of heritable traits, the ESC found itself adapting its strategy to that of birth control, while maintaining a focus on economic benefit. It garnered consierable support, but was never able to table eugenic sterilization effectively in the political arena. the ESC met its end shortly after a public relations blunder in 1938, when a representative implied the ESC and the Nazi party sought to achieve similar goals through similar means. It is not surprising then, that when World War II broke out in 1939, the ESC lost nearly all of its support.

Recent court discussions in Manitoba have investigated the legality and ethical permissibility of involuntary sterilization of the mentally disabled. Focusing on those individuals found legally incompetent, the 1990 and 1992 reports outlined the scenarios where an involuntary sterilization could be warranted. As stated by the 1990 discussion, three conditions are necessary for an individual to undergo any medical procedure.

• The individual must be informed of both the nature, and risks/benefits of the procedure.

• The consent must be voluntary, not the product of coercion, threat, or fraud.

• The individual must be competent* enough to give the above consent.

Individuals who are legally incompetent include minors and sufficiently-disabled adults.

The discussion reached a consensus that involuntary sterilization (or sterilization with substituted consent) is only permissible if it has an explicit positive effect on the physical or mental health of the individual: this is called therapeutic sterilization. One such case involved was a seriously disabled girl with an aversive phobia to blood, who was scheduled to undergo a hysterectomy. The rationale of the surgery was not eugenic, but rather to protect the girl from the direct mental trauma that would likely arise upon initiation of menses. This judgement was seen to be on the very threshold between therapeutic and nontherapeutic surgical intervention. This discussion also cits a landmark case in substituted consent known as the Mrs. E. vs. Eve case. In it, a mother, "Mrs. E.", wished to have her moderately intellectually disabled daughted "Eve" sterilized to save her the emotional distress potentially caused by pregnancy and childbirth. Additionally, it was argued that Eve would neither be capable of using any other methof of contraception, nor caring for a child should she become pregnant. Since the sterilization was not explicitly therapeutic and carried grave physical harm and an intrusion on Eve's rights, Mrs. E. could not be given the authority to have her daughter sterilized. It was then explored whether or not the government itself could make the decision, using jurisdiction. Parens patriae allows the government to make authorizations in the "best interests" where no other source of consent can be attained; this includes children, and mentally disabled persons. In the Eve case, the risks were deemed too high and the benefits too obscure to authorize a nontherapeutic sterilization via parens patriae juristiction, since a surgical sterilization is an irreversible procedure.

[Mr. Ambien]

It's late here and I'm tired so I'm not going to provided the statistic I should to shut your kind up.

Clinton's years led to economic boom and a mainstay for your economy in the NAFTA signing. And yes, borrow, keep the money flowing through the economy, keep building roads and having people work. Bush tanked the economy through 2 wars one of which was completely unnecessary. He also led the campaign for less economic regulations leading to the housing crisis which effected the world as more than 8 trillion was tied up in equity.

By borrowing Obama has prevented the American economy from tanking even further. He has kept the American auto industry a float, as Ford, Chrysler and GM reported highs this last quarter. I shouldn't have to explain to you why an industry that big is vital to the American economy. The stimulus plan worked, and has seen job growth every term.

Ron Paul and his tea party crackheads led the campaign to prevent the debt ceiling from rising. To their narrow minded uneducated selves, lowering the debt ceiling would prevent further economic backslide. In reality, or to anyone who remotely understands economics, raising the debt ceiling would have prevented the default of Aug 2011 and ensure that American currency wouldn't be devalued. Ron Paul's answer is to cut social programs - which in a recession means further damage towards the middle and lower class.

Throw in your current nominee, Mitt Romney. The man without policy as he refuses to talk about anything of substance, and instead panders to the American population with the Republican National Convention themed after "American Exceptionalism" - a smokescreen if I've ever seen one. We don't know how Romney would run a government because he refuses to take a stand on anything. We know that he wants a smaller government but that says very little as to how it would be implemented in terms of policy. Instead the media attempts to determine how he does business in Bain capital, a corporation guilty of slave labour and buying up failing companies only to liquidate all assets into a profit. But now Bain capital is off side so we can't explore as to how he would run a government as he claims to have successfully run a business. Oh not to mention, religion and social views are off side as well - my assumption because Mormonism defiles women and Romney has stated he believes only blacks require welfare. Add to all this Romney doesn't pay his taxes and keeps his money offshore, clearly a guy who cares about his fellow Americans...

McCain was a guy I could respect - what happened?

No, I didn't cover Gary Johnson as he's not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter. Libertarian government essentially means no government at all. A broad theme with little substantive plausibility.

Oh and you didn't answer my question - how do you reduce the deficit if you refuse to cut defense spending (the largest form of spending) or increase revenue (tax the rich). Instead the republican side has attempted tax cut after tax cut and plans to juggle two wars while possibly starting a 3rd in Iran.

Obama has had four years to deal with 2 wars (he has a noble peace prize I might add), the worst economic depression since the 1930s as well as dealing with a tea party congress which refuses compromise on anything substantive. Obama has achieved a lot despite these set backs, and I believe he can do much more with a 2nd term without the pressure of having to pander to the far right.

[Hobble]

[RUPERTKBD]

Gary Johnson. His beliefs are the closest to my own and I suggest anyone else google the guy and be astounded that independents like him are out there but the main parties continue to offer Americans more of the same crap.

[RUPERTKBD]

for some reason this post make me really miss playing hockey .

gonna go for a skate at docklands this weekend

[Mr. Ambien]

I must have misread the OP....

I could have sworn the question was Obama or Romney. In fact, I was pretty sure that it specifically said no third options....

[RUPERTKBD]

I could have sworn OP is the one who writes what candidates go on the Presidential ballot.. oh, snap..

But I will note next time OP puts two options and tells you no third one, especially if those options are "jump off a bridge" and "blow yourself up", you'll religiously follow his instructions.

Obviously we don't care if he doesn't want to include anyone besides Obama or Romney. I'm also not going to vote on the poll because it doesn't include anyone I'm actually voting for.

[Mr. Ambien]

Obviously, nobody particularly cares whom you're voting for.

The fact is, either Romney or Obama will be the next President. The question was, "which of these two would you prefer?" In your case (and a few others) it would be essentially, "Which of the two do you consider to be the lesser of two evils?"

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Obviously someone who doesn't care shouldn't respond.. else they show they do care.. quite a bit more than others, in fact.

Whether that's a fact or not about one of them winning has nothing to do with who I'm voting for. I don't prefer either because both of them are the same and would suck just as badly.

I don't allow the "lesser of two evils" nonsense to sway my vote. This is just like the religious belief that you should play it safe and believe in [insert religion here] or else you go to hell. Sad that for so many that this manipulative thought process works.. to both Romney and Obama's pleasure.

[Mr. Ambien]

Right on. Voting for the lesser evil only means you're stuck in slightly less crap than you would be with the other guy. WHY AREN'T PEOPLE TIRED OF BEING IN crap AT ALL!?

[Trelane42]

Any discussion of the "Clinton economic boom" is incomplete without mentioning the internet revolution. Corporations, governments and other businesses were adding IT departments all throughout the decade. Support industries sprung up all around and did their part to offset the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs to Asia and thus save Clinton's ample posterior.

That revolution is over and even continued improvement in telecommunications will not significantly impact the labor force from now.

Also, the Clinton administration was responsible for much of the deregulation that allowed for expanded derivative banking, increase in commodities speculation, and easy mortgage financing. The chickens came home to roost on Bush II watch, who, at the bidding of his corporate and Central Bank masters, shifted the liability on to taxpayers.

[Mr. Ambien]

Any discussion of the "Clinton economic boom" is incomplete without mentioning the internet revolution. Corporations, governments and other businesses were adding IT departments all throughout the decade. Support industries sprung up all around and did their part to offset the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs to Asia and thus save Clinton's ample posterior.

That revolution is over and even continued improvement in telecommunications will not significantly impact the labor force from now.

Also, the Clinton administration was responsible for much of the deregulation that allowed for expanded derivative banking, increase in commodities speculation, and easy mortgage financing. The chickens came home to roost on Bush II watch, who, at the bidding of his corporate and Central Bank masters, shifted the liability on to taxpayers.

[RUPERTKBD]

Obviously someone who doesn't care shouldn't respond.. else they show they do care.. quite a bit more than others, in fact.

Whether that's a fact or not about one of them winning has nothing to do with who I'm voting for. I don't prefer either because both of them are the same and would suck just as badly.

I don't allow the "lesser of two evils" nonsense to sway my vote. This is just like the religious belief that you should play it safe and believe in [insert religion here] or else you go to hell. Sad that for so many that this manipulative thought process works.. to both Romney and Obama's pleasure.

[Mr. Ambien]

It's all beside the point.

The fact is, whether you or S.E.T. want to admit it, either Obama or Romney will be the next President of the United States. The OP's question was, knowing that one of them is going to win, which do you prefer.

If the thread were entitled "Who are you voting for?" then you'd have a point. However, in this case, throwing out a third (or 4th) option is tantamount to chiming in on a thread that asked "Who would you rather sign, Doan or Arnott", and saying "I'd rather sign Weber...".

Maybe you would, but it's not germane to the topic at hand, nor is it anywhere within the realm of possibility.

[Sharpshooter]

Uh, someone would be justified saying they'd prefer Weber in that type of discussion too.. this is a discussion board not basic training. Try and relax, corporal.

[Mr. Ambien]

Try to stay on topic then. All you've done so far from what i've read, is try to derail the thread with talk of Clinton, Bush, Paul, Johnson.

The OP gave you two choices to choose from and asked you why you'd choose either. You've made your point about not wanting to choose either. Fair enough. So why now incessantly argue with others in the thread who choose either of the two main candidates?

Go start your own thread about comparative political ideologies, Clinton's record as POTUS, or whatever other tangent you're trying to introduce.

[Mr. Ambien]

Can't argue with anything you've posted here. It's just a crying shame that so many people have willfully put their heads in the sand. I guess they will eventually wise up when the real financial tsunami hits. When it does it will make the last one seem like a walk in the park.

The link you posted certainly had some interesting stats. If there was a minimum IQ of 101 required to vote, 44% of the voting public would be disqualified from casting a ballot. Was shocked to see that 84% of the black vote would be eliminated. I suspected it would be the highest of all the groups but damn that's a big %.

[Dittohead]

No surprise in the results.

[Sharpshooter]

No surprise in the results.