Most economists (~90%) think free trade is a huge net positive for the world. Paul Krugman, the most prominent living left-wing economist, is a unabashed supporter of trade. Obama demonizes it. Krugman is much closer to McCain than Obama on free trade.

Obama wants to raise taxes because there is no place to cut a $3 trillion budget. In fact, he wants to add many new expenditures to that budget. Many smart people seem to have gotten caught up in his class-warrior socialist rhetoric, but the truth is we all lose when government punishes the productive sectors of society through taxation.

Subsidies? Every economist I know and most environmentalists are against corn and ethanol subsidies. McCain had the balls to make a stand against them at a debate IN IOWA, a notorious corn state. Obama realizes that handouts win votes, and spinelessly sticks by them.

Healthcare? The big healthcare problem in the United States is cost, not access. See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/getting_re... . McCain wants to address the cost of healthcare. Obama is all about access. I think Obama is wrong on the issue.

Energy: Obama promises to subsidize various technologies out the wazoo, but we have seen little return from previous billion-dollar efforts.

Your last sentence illustrates the religion-like fervor that has developed around Obama and the intellectual bankruptcy of his movement. I won't be voting for McCain, but I have no illusions that Saunt Obama is going to save the world.

I'm sorry I stated the case against your savior. I hadn't realized that Hacker News had turned into reddit, and that any comment against the one with the Kennedy smile was worthy of downvotes.

"I hadn't realized that Hacker News had turned into reddit, and that any comment against the one with the Kennedy smile was worthy of downvotes"

I suspect you are being downmodded not for the content of your comments but your condescending and sneering remarks, eg, the "your savior" bit or this - "Saunt Obama".

I suspect anyone sneering at the opposite side ("Caribou Barbie" or "McShame" for e.g) would be downmodded too.

If one must discuss politics on HN (and there are good reasons not to), I would hope the standard of discourse to be much higher than on a political site (or even reddit).

Assuming that people holding opposite an opposite view is intelligent and have good reasons to do is probably a good starting point.

Likewisw for those downmodding you.

"Your savior" (for e,g) smacks of condescension and implicitly tries to paint the author of the comment you were responding to as some kind of cult follower.

My personal opinion (fwiw) is that HN should avoid these political discussions. But then what do I know? I am not a United States citizen and so am much more detached from the elections. Another 10 days and the excitement should die down.

I'm sorry, I was responding to the weights given our initial comments at the time of making my second one. It was frustrating for me to see a simple (though unsupported) opinion of mine given many downvotes because it expressed concern about the stances of Obama, while the following (also unsupported) comment had an equal number of upvotes for praising Him. That is how the mass-opinion moves.

It was unfair of me to attack the motives of Obama supporters. I do get frustrated living in real-world surroundings where there are 40 Obama bumper stickers for every 1 for somebody else, and an online world that is, if anything, more biased.

I would edit out the flippant remarks if I could, but alas, too much time has passed and HN doesn't let me. It is also my personal failing that I am unable to let a political discussion progress without getting involved. It is a further personal failing that I cannot do so while remaining dispassionate, although I have in the past. I may have just been worn down by Obamamania, it following me from the ground in pre-primary New Hampshire to university in San Diego unabated for nearly a solid year.

I also look forward to ten days from now when the excitement dies down, and our representatives in the great tug-of-war over the wealth of society that is democracy has been decided.

Ok, ok, I'm going to break down and talk politics for once:

Here's the difference, for me, in a nutshell.

Smart Democrats, like Krugman (and Bill Clinton for that matter), can be reasoned with and see the light about things like free trade, and can discuss economic freedoms with regards to their philosophical vision for society. You may not always agree with that vision, but generally if you find someone bright, you can argue with them and get them to consider your point of view, and maybe even change their position. On the other hand, the current Republican party is dominated by Sarah Palin types. They are convinced that God has told them a variety of things, such as evolution is wrong, that we were right to invade Iraq in her case, that torture is ok because we're the good guys, and so on. You can't argue with that kind of mentality - there is no room for it, because it is in no way connected to logic.

It's that anti-reason, anti-science, anti-intellectual, "god told me so" approach to the world that I think is absolutely poisonous.

Really though, can we just 'flag' these sorts of articles and avoid the subject entirely? We'd waste less time doing something unproductive.

Sure Obama demonizes free trade.

And, of course, Warren Buffett is a socialist because he wants to spread the wealth around.

Free trade is generally a net gain for the world, but it also tends to increase consumption which is not necessarily a good idea. For example if local industry is more carbon efficient then we might increase global pollution for little real gain. Ditto for cases like Mad Cow disease etc.

Due to differences in regulation I don't want to see Chinese drug manufactures shipping drugs to the US. I don't mind if US or EU companies manufacture in China but the potential harm from contaminated drugs IMO outweighs the potential cost reductions.

Granted for bulk goods like Lumber, Steel, and Oil it's probably a pure net win.

PS: I find it offensive that Bill Gates has a lower effective tax rate than I do, but I don't see that changing any time soon. I am for an all inclusive flat tax with zero tax breaks of any kind, but I don't see anyone jumping on that bandwagon. AKA you don't treat stock ownership different than home ownership, and there is no cap on Social Security, and there is no charitable giving tax break etc. (Federal, State, and Local tax inclusive.)

Due to "free-trade" policies (rather, mandates from the British), Ireland was a net export of food during the Irish potato famine.