What is the one issue you don't think had enough discussion in this Pres. election?

GuilewasNK

GuilewasNK

CAGiversary!
Feedback
110 (100%)
The one thing I don't recall either major party candidate talk about was gangs and gang violence in the United States. It always seems like America doesn't do enough to help itself most of the time. We'll send the National Guard to a foreign nation, but we can't send them into tough american neighborhoods overrun by gangs?
 
Using military force inside our borders is a bad idea. The politicians don't want to be in the middle of a potential civilian/military issue, the soldiers themselves sure as bloody fuck don't want to be pointing their weapons at Americans, etc. Bad bad bad idea.

I would have liked to have heard more about immigration. It fell waaaaaay off the table this go round because McCain didn't want to piss off conservatives and Obama didn't want to piss off Latinos. I have no idea what each would actually do as President about it, what little rhetoric there was aside.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Using military force inside our borders is a bad idea. The politicians don't want to be in the middle of a potential civilian/military issue, the soldiers themselves sure as bloody fuck don't want to be pointing their weapons at Americans, etc. Bad bad bad idea.
[/quote]

I bet if you ask the people that live in those hellholes, they would welcome the help. At the least they could have non-lethal weapons at their disposal and just have a presence.

Besides, if we can use the ATF and FBI for Ruby Ridge and Waco, there is no reason not to use it for a legitmate good.
 
Domestic crime policy and funding for social science research (and research in general). That's myself serving answer. :D

I was surprised to hear next to nothing about immigration, though glad as I'm sick of the topic.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']National Debt[/quote]
Yeah. For some reason, I wasn't impressed with the easy "cut taxes, and cut spending even more!" answers they both gave.
 
Well, the debt will never have a chance to go down as long as we are fighting two wars or even one. I kind of wish we went the Prime Directive route on Iraq, but hindsight is 20/20.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I bet if you ask the people that live in those hellholes, they would welcome the help.[/quote]

Not sure about that, here in DC they filed a lawsuit. The article below is brief, but from local news I know reaction to increased police presence and security measures is a mixed bag at best.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The D.C. Police Department earned a major victory Thursday after a federal judge ruled that the controversial checkpoints established in Northeast Washington's Trinidad neighborhood are indeed legal.
After eight homicides during a six-month period in the Trinidad community of Washington, city leaders made a radical decision.
"There are some circumstances where violence is so severe that extreme measures are necessary," Mayor Adrian Fenty announced on Thursday night.
D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier came up with neighborhood safe zones, called police checkpoints.
"We really do have the integrity in carrying out our mission to protect and serve the public," said Chief Lanier. "It's never our intention to violate anyone's rights."
What appeared to be a solution for some became a problem for others. They complained that the massive police presence was a civil rights violation.
"There was a lot of misinformation out there about what we were doing—going into cars, doing this and that," said Chief Lanier. "That's not true."
Four residents filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming the checkpoints were unconstitutional. But on Thursday, the judge sided with the city and upheld the District's establishment of checkpoints.
"The least they could do is establish a presence, but if something was going on this violent, I would want someone to do something," said Mayor Fenty.
Click to expand...

http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/...n=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1
 
[quote name='ananag112']I wanted more talk on the government funding pure scientific research.[/quote]
This.

The Nobel Foundation, SEA, (of which I'm a member) and other think tanks wanted to hold a scientific discussion to hear the candidates' issues on various research topics and interests, but it got shot down. Meanwhile, Obama had a statement prepared for how he was going to increase NSF and medical research funding, as well as increase funding for other departments (interior, agriculture, FDA, etc.) but the question never arose in any of the debates. McCain, on the other hand, has nothing prepared.
 
IMO, Veteran's services. For sending these guys/gals off to die for our cause (whether good or bad), we don't take care of them very well.
 
Immigration, legal or not.

It seems the issue all but died a few months ago when the economy started going down the tubes.
 
Crime control and what to do with our overcrowded prisons, 700,000+ felons who are released each year, and how to reduce our astronomically high recidivism rates.
 
[quote name='ananag112']I wanted more talk on the government funding pure scientific research.[/quote]

This.
 
Immigration reform
Getting rid of the Federal Reserve
Getting rid of the IRS
Reducing the government's size by several magnitudes
Restoring states rights/responsibilities


Now you can see why I was so damn cynical about the election. The issues were, imo, mickey mouse and trivial at best.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Immigration reform
Getting rid of the Federal Reserve
Getting rid of the IRS
Reducing the government's size by several magnitudes
Restoring states rights/responsibilities


Now you can see why I was so damn cynical about the election. The issues were, imo, mickey mouse and trivial at best.[/quote]

I hear you on that.

Since you mentioned getting rid of the IRS, are you a supporter of the Fair Tax?
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']Stupid people crapping out kids they can't afford.[/quote]

...

Do you want to discuss how to penalize people who do this or something? It's quite tough to define "afford" in this case, and even tougher to do anything about it even if they can't afford the kids.

So you're saying forced abortions FTW?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I hear you on that.

Since you mentioned getting rid of the IRS, are you a supporter of the Fair Tax?[/QUOTE]

Call it what it is: a consumption tax. If you want to clarify, call it "Neal Boortz's consumption tax proposal."

It's fairness is up for debate. [Strell]Unlike the size of my wang.[/Strell]
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I hear you on that.

Since you mentioned getting rid of the IRS, are you a supporter of the Fair Tax?[/QUOTE]

From what I know about it, yes. But I'm not an expert on it.

I do think the entire concept of income tax is unjust. But I am all for taxing purchases. That seems more fair.

That way the fat-cat rich people that so many despise and want to punish, really can't live a very lavish lifestyle without paying a fat tax on their luxury purchases.

I'd much rather not pay income tax and pay a much higher sales tax on most non-essential goods.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Social security. No politician wants to touch this with a 10-foot pole but it's a ticking economic time bomb.[/quote]

Interesting you mention this, my one adjunct professor in my last weekend intensive class (Who Really Elects the US President), stated that if Social Security was taxed up to $250,000 that our problems would disappear tommorrow.

I admit that I don't know the accuracy of his proposal.
 
[quote name='nathansu']...

Do you want to discuss how to penalize people who do this or something? It's quite tough to define "afford" in this case, and even tougher to do anything about it even if they can't afford the kids.

So you're saying forced abortions FTW?[/quote]

No, just a comment. Don't read too much into it. I am not proposing anything radical.

I would like better education on the cost and responsibility associated with raising a child.

I have seen way too many of my friends and relatives suffer from economic hardships due to unplanned children. They love their children, they just wish they were better prepared monetarily and emotionally. As my mom says, "Unplanned doesn't mean unwanted."

Obama had an ad on educating young women to help prevent teen pregancies. (In response to Palin's extreme anti-abortion beliefs) It was a simple idea, but was just another idea he had that I felt was on the right track.
 
Monetary policy.
Energy policy. something other than 'clean coal' and 'drill now' bullshit.
Immigration policy.
Iran and Russia policy
Israel and Syria policy
India and Pakistan policy
The national debt and spending control instead of the stated rampant spending
Impending outlays for promised spending
National Security versus individual rights.
Defense spending policy
Iraq and Afganistan policy
Supreme court justice nominations.

In that order.

None of these 'issues' were actually talked about or debated during this election.
 
America needs to stay out of conflicts between India and Pakistan. They can handle themselves and America cannot be forced to pick a side between the two.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
None of these 'issues' were actually talked about or debated during this election.[/QUOTE]

I hate to state the obvious, but that's because both Obama and McCain have almost the exact same stance on every one of those issues.

Which is why a vote for either dominating party, most of the time, is a wasted vote - if you care about that stuff.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I hate to state the obvious, but that's because both Obama and McCain have almost the exact same stance on every one of those issues.

Which is why a vote for either dominating party, most of the time, is a wasted vote - if you care about that stuff.[/QUOTE]

That's crazy talk. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top