Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2008 Presidential Hopefuls

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

I hope it's not too late to revive this thread after a 3 months break of no further comments.

I have read Peikoff's comments about voting republican. He seems to hold that anyone who votes Republican does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism.

I find this very confusing. I see that there are a lot of Christian conservatives running that party, but still, I am not convinced that most of them really LIVE by the standards of their religion. It would be much much worse if they really would, but in fact, I think it's exaggerated to say that party would bring us back to the dark ages.

To me they are religious in name only, just in love with certain traditions which seem to give them a sense of identity and self confidence that they fail to discover objectively. I look at them more like a club of traditionalists who happen to count economic freedom as one of their traditions they proudly try to maintain. Although many of them may not understand the true basis of freedom, I think Guiliani does much more than most of them.

And most of all, the degree to which their poor remnants of religious convictions could ever affect American lives negatively seriously is far less than the amount of added socialism by the Democrats could do.

And given the list of potential candidates, I think Guiliani qualifies in the field of leadership, I think he can bring that original sense of RATIONAL self confidence back to the country, I think he can remind Americans WHY their country is so great on a rational, objective basis, rather than just by quoting the bible. And I think by presenting America with his rational views, he could give the rest of the world some REAL arguments to ponder on, and remind the rest of the world why America ORIGINALLY has a properly founded constitution.

Because most people outside America seem to think America was founded on the Bible. It is time for the world to get the right impression. It is time that America gets a President who can really DEFEND America's actions rationally, rather than lowering America to a false basis even LOWER than that in many middle and western European countries by arguing with religious commandments.

I can't think of any European head of state who would really talk about God in any assembly, meeting, or other public performance or try to justify or convince others of certain actions with religion. And this is why no majority in any of these European countries would EVER take America serious again. They will always feel morally superior as long as America has a president who tries to argue with that mysticism.

I think a president who reminds Americans about the right philosophy is of fundamental importance now.

I believe Guiliani is goal directed, nows how to set goals and motivate others to keep their focus, nows how to think positively, nows how to look at the important aspects in life, those that matter, he's the one that believes in progress and understands the joy it brings rather than statism. I believe he can lead America through ANY crisis without splitting up the country and without making Americans feel ashamed of themselves, because he will always argue rationally.

I think America should use that rare opportunity and vote for Guiliani in hope of steering the country into the right direction philosophically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She and Bill go to great pains to hide it, but every once in a while Comrade Hillary slips and a little bit of her Marxism peaks through the camouflage. It's sad, but she's going to be our next president.

p.s., not only is she a socialist, but she's a deeply religious one too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_...ocrats_religion

Edited by gags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hillary spelled out her universal "affordable" health care proposal. Her plan would require every American to purchase insurance, either through their jobs or through a program modeled on Medicare or the federal employee health plan. She put the government's cost at $110 billion a year (yeah right!)

The new proposal would not allow insurance companies to deny coverage to people who apply and pay their premium regardless of pre-existing conditions. Insurers also would have to standardize premiums so they couldn't charge more based on age, gender or occupation. Large employers would be required to offer health insurance or help pay the cost of coverage.

Ahh but according to her "It is not a government run health care plan".

Giuliani's response: "This is essentially the Michael Moore-Hillary Clinton approach, which is 'let's see if we can build socialized medicine.' The idea that you are going to mandate people and command them to have health insurance immediately begins to increase the cost of insurance and decrease the quality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that both parties want to make some major changes to health-care. Republican Mitt Romney criticized Hillary's plan, but he signed something similar into law when he was Governor. That tells me he'll do the same if a Democratic Congress sends him a similar bill as President. Guiliani has spoken of a tax-credit/tax-deduction based plan, which would be an improvement from the current situation. Today, Republican Karl Rove, wrote about such a plan, in a WSJ op-ed. I don't know if a Guiliani/Rove style plan can pass, because it does not contain too many handouts to the poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama's recent comments regarding the economy and Wall Street are nothing short of nauseating:

He said a "what's good for me is good enough" mentality has crept into parts of the business world while working men and women toil longer hours and still struggle to pay for health care, tuition and taxes.

"If we are honest, I think we must admit that those who have benefited from the new global marketplace — and that includes almost everyone in this room — have not always concerned themselves with the losers in this new economy," the Illinois senator said.

"The danger with this mentality isn't just that it offends our morals, it's that it endangers our markets," Obama said.

Of course Obama had to take the obligatory Democratic swipe at CEOs:

Obama blamed Wall Street for wasteful and unethical anti-market practices such as corporate boards that allow executives to set the price of stock options to guarantee they'll make money regardless of performance and CEOs who get massive severance packages or perks even when workers lose their jobs or pensions. But he also accused the Bush administration of approving mergers with little scrutiny and maintaining more than $1 trillion worth of corporate tax loopholes.

Just in case you weren't convinced that Obama is a collectivist, he made it abundantly clear:

I am asking you to join me in ushering in a new era of mutual responsibility in America," he said. He said he believes Wall Street leaders want to be part of building a more just nation, but they haven't been asked before.

Not finished there, he also weighed in on the subprime mortgage "crisis":

He said that trust can be restored by federal action like:

_ New mortgage rules with tough penalties for lenders who trick homeowners into loans they can't afford;

_ An investigation of the relationship and business practices of rating agencies and their clients;

_ A five-star credit card rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk for their credit card, including how easily the company can change the interest rate;

_ A request that lenders show some flexibility to people trying to sell or refinance their homes.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hEx3tiP...qjNmHR_oP6FZMuw

He makes Hillary look like a right wing fanatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does everyone think about Newt potentially entering the race?

I don't vote for Salamandridae on principle.

For a serious answer, I don't see what sets Gingrich apart from the other Republican candidates, and he buys into the "global warming" nonsense:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041000963.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does everyone think about Newt potentially entering the race?

To my understanding, Newt Gingrich is also dangerously comfortable with the religious right. For example, in this interview he states that the Federal court "was completely wrong" for ordering the Ten Commandments monument removed from an Alabama courthouse a few years ago, although he acknowledges that Judge Roy Moore should have appealed to Congress.

The former Speaker of the House has also encouraged graduating students at Liberty University to fight "the growing culture of radical secularism."

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my understanding, Newt Gingrich is also dangerously comfortable with the religious right. For example, in this interview he states that the Federal court "was completely wrong" for ordering the Ten Commandments monument removed from an Alabama courthouse a few years ago, although he acknowledges that Judge Roy Moore should have appealed to Congress.

The former Speaker of the House has also encouraged graduating students at Liberty University to fight "the growing culture of radical secularism."

I had no idea about any of that. To top it off, he also has spoken glowingly of FDR.

He's what I'd call a pragmatist, with a rather bad mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides being pro-religion, Gingrich his anti-immigration stances are of the xenophobic variety. As for "electability", he probably would do well in a primary, but not in a general election. If I'm going to vote for a pragmatist, I figure why not get a more secular one, like Guiliani.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pragmatist" is an apt description for Gingrich. Not too long ago, he had something of a rapprochement with Hillary as the two seemed to agree quite a bit on issues like government invovlement in healthcare and even on national defense. In terms of healthcare, "Her recent views on the subject struck a chord with Gingrich, she recalled. "Newt Gingrich called and said 'You're absolutely right,"' Clinton said." Gingrich is another big government Republican.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/13/news/clinton.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Kubby sounds promising, he feels REALLY strongly about abolishing the war on drugs wich is pretty cool compared to other libertarian candidates who just want to arbitrarily privitize as many things as possible including the three things that should never be privitized: The police, the courts, and the military.

http://www.kubby2008.com/node/8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Kubby sounds promising, he feels REALLY strongly about abolishing the war on drugs [which] is pretty cool compared to other libertarian candidates who just want to arbitrarily [privatize] as many things as possible including the three things that should never be [privatized]: The police, the courts, and the military.

He still looks unimpressive. In addition to running for the Libertarian Party, his "position paper" on foreign policy mentions no threats from Islamic fundamentalism or the politically correct cop-out: "terrorism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Frankly, I'm not sure there's a better viable candidate than Mccain in the field. Not because I agree with him on much, but because he doesn't have what it takes politically to enact the disastrous domestic policies he supports, and does have what it takes to at least keep a decent foreign policy. And if he does go completely nuts, at least we'll still have our guns unlike with Rudy . Never give up your guns, they are the most important part of "checks and balances."

Hillary Clinton is just Ellsworth Toohey with more testosterone, and she's the only Democrat with any real chance other than John Edwards (A populist of the sort that's plagued Latin America this past century or so.)

Ron Paul, however much he mouths the freedom rhetoric, has declared he wishes to abolish the IRS without telling us what funding mechanism he'll replace it with. That way lies not freedom but anarchy, and the inevitable backlash of dictatorship. Besides, he's polling at 2% and so it's a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if he does go completely nuts, at least we'll still have our guns unlike with Rudy . Never give up your guns, they are the most important part of "checks and balances."

I live in NYC and I have a gun. It's OK, even Bloomberg, with his MUCH strickter gun laws didn't completely take away our right to own a gun (like in DC where you're not allowed to have one at all)

All Giuliani did was make it harder for criminals to buy a gun. before he enforced those gun laws, we never dreamed of buying a gun, but because he made those laws - we decided to get a lisence and buy a gun. so there you have it. regular citizens DO have guns in NYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading this article at the student health services yesterday, that talked about how Giuliani has a *lot* of influential neo-conservatives as his closest advisers (I think the main one is Norman Podhoretz). I don't have it with me, so I can't give any names, but wouldn't that influence whether it's a good idea to vote for him, or not? If this ideology will make a huge impact on what he does as a president, then how does that make him better than Bush, for example? Sure, Bush is more religious, but that probably doesn't matter that much if they ascribe to the same basic ideology when it comes to how to run the government.

If anyone can dig up more info on this, that'd be greatly appreciated :)

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why because he wants to raise taxes?

No more or less then anyone else on the field, beside Paul. I think Obama just has a good personality. His stance don't seem like he will do a lot of damage in office. Plus, I think his attitudes and outlook will change if he actually got into office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have been for Gingrich, despite his passionate defense of religion and faith. However without Gingrich in the race I'll probably end up supporting McCain or Romney in the primary. Whether I will vote for the Republican candidate in the general election is a different story. President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the worst thing in the world after eight years of Bush and it would probably regenerate the "libertarian" wing in the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...