NationStates Jolt Archive

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.

I'd be exceptionally disappointed, as Hillary Clinton is the true embodiment of "Same Shit, Different Asshole".

I'd laugh. At everyone.

Moving to Ireland is a cool idea regardless of who wins.
I can't argue with THAT,I think I might do that.

I'd be exceptionally disappointed, as Hillary Clinton is the true embodiment of "Same Shit, Different Asshole".

She and Romney are. That's why I'm convinced this election will be between the two of them.

And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.

Moving to Ireland is a cool idea regardless of who wins.

I would prepair for 4 years of HUGE taxe increases and horrible health care.

What's everyone got against Hillary Clinton?

What's everyone got against Hillary Clinton?
Look at what Vetalia said here
I'd be exceptionally disappointed, as Hillary Clinton is the true embodiment of "Same Shit, Different Asshole".

What's everyone got against Hillary Clinton?

She hates video games. :mad:

I voted Kill myself, but I doubt I actually would. . . Ok, well maybe, but only if I took her down with me somehow.
I would be completely unable and willing to live in a communistic state, or what she likes to trumpet as "Socialized". She is an absolute horror to the American government and individual freedom.

I would just be vaguely amused at the prospect of being able to have 28 years of presidency split between 2 immediate families...who says Americans don't like royalty...

She hates video games.
I wish i could just:sniper:
:sniper:
:sniper:

I'd just point and laugh.

I would just be vaguely amused at the prospect of being able to have 28 years of presidency split between 2 immediate families...who says Americans don't like royalty...

Chelsea Clinton will have just turned 35 when Hillary's second term is over in 2016. :D

Personally I think it would look good for America in that she would be the first female president, and that the US would get two presidents for the price of one. :)

Personally I think it would look good for America in that she would be the first female president, and that the US would get two presidents for the price of one.
It would LOOK good but it would'nt WORK good.Function over form.Freedom over Political Correctness.

I dislike her, but not so much that I wouldn't want to stick around to see the mass migration if she wins.

If Hillary got elected I may put my gunsmithing skills to use...by opening my very own gunshop and range while I still could.

[Edit]
I don't know why "Team up with Al-Queda to kill Hillary" is on there, Al Qaeda loves Democrats because Dems would welcome foreign terrorism with open arms and outlaw all religion and views which conflict with party doctrine. Then again...I do love parties. And cake.

When Dubya got elected I said I was moving to Canada. Unfortunately I didn't have the funds. As to the "Same Shit, Different Asshole" quote: every person running for president falls under that category. So it really doesn't matter who wins. Life is going to suck no matter who the president is. But don't worry because she won't win. America, as it is, will never elect anyone who isn't a white, wealthy, christian, male. America is still a bit backwards, unfortunately.

What's everyone got against Hillary Clinton?

She hates video games. :mad:

^ What he said. People that are advocating getting your states to do the parenting for the parents are the sort of people you don't want anywhere near your top spot.

Hillary is definately a "Meh" candidate to me.

'sides, I'll b out of the country semi-permanently in 2 years anyway, so big "Meh".

^ What he said. People that advocating getting your states to do the parenting for the parents are the sort of people you don't want anywhere near your top spot.

I actually agree that the State should parent children; parents should. But happens when parents won't parent, but don't mind complaining that the government is trying to?

People that advocating getting your states to do the parenting for the parents are the sort of people you don't want anywhere near your top spot.

I don't trust the state enough to let it parent for the parents so to speak.Hillary Clinton by taking that stance is(basicly)saying that we are'nt smart enough to decide what is right for ourselves,Hillary(and all the other politicions)are smart enough to make the decisions for both us AND themselves:rolleyes:.I beg to differ with her.

I wouldn't give a fuck.

What I find the most funny about people who want the government to teach and practically raise their children also constantly complain about the same government's corruptness or stupidity.

Hillary has given in to the pro-war against Iran lobby, so no...

What I find the most funny about people who want the government to teach and practically raise their children also constantly complain about the same government's corruptness or stupidity.
When(and if)I have kids,i am NOT sending them to a public school!
Public schools are about as smart as doing this all day:headbang:but you mlearn more from this:headbang:thyen public schools

Who cares? Shes George Bush with a vagina and higher taxes.

Same shit, different party. I'd be dissappointed, but I'd go on with my life and hope that a better Dem was elected next.

I have to admit that the collective conniption fit might be fun to watch. It'd be good to be on the other end of that for a change...

But seriously, seems a little early to call this thing, doesn't it?

Same shit, different party. I'd be dissappointed, but I'd go on with my life and hope that a better Dem was elected next.

Chelsea?

Chelsea?

Chelsea Clinton 2016!

Chelsea Clinton 2016!

And I thought the Bushes and Kennedys were bad...

I don't know why "Team up with Al-Queda to kill Hillary" is on there, Al Qaeda loves Democrats because Dems would welcome foreign terrorism with open arms....
No, ya got it all wrong. Terrorists love the Republican party, especially George Bush for invading Iraq:

The Iraq Effect: War has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/aftermath.html?welcome=true)

And the head honcho, ya that Bin hiding guy, is still waiting for Bush to come and smoke him out of his cave.

BUSH: In terms of Mr. bin Laden himself, we'll get him running. We'll smoke him out of his cave and we'll get him eventually.

And the cost of the Bush folly:

The War in Iraq Costs (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html)

Chelsea?

Dear Lord, no. Chelsea Clinton works for a hedge fund, IIRC. That's going nowhere, fast.

No, but there is some up and coming talent in the Senate, and I think Jim Webb, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, or Russ Feingold would make a fine President. And there are the Dem. Governors. Deval Patrick is certainly doing a good job.

smile. lets face it, we're not going to get anyone who doesn't kiss the ass of the corporate mafia. hillary and obama both have. kusenich and gravel who won't, know, as does everyone else, they don't stand a snowflakes chance, precisely because of their refusal to. and the retardliterrorcans, true to form, haven't fielded anyone i would trust further then i could throw.

so she ISN'T my first choice, but, she's looking at this point like the most likely to get in who might not screw us as much more then the corporatocracy tells them to then any of 'the "r" word'.

and i have noting agains the idea of a woman or minority getting elected. if the r'licans were using better sense, they'd be running condi rice. who appears to be both a woman, an afro american AND the kind of economic chauvanist who will give the loonatic right the dictatorial control of planet earth they lust after.

my guess is the're saving her to run against hillary in 2012, when it's hillary's turn to be the incumbent.

=^^=
.../\...

I will be very sad, because not only will Hillary fuck things up, the ignorance that is the American voting public will immediately go voting for a Republican in 2012 which will continue to make things worse and we'll have another eight years of fucked up fuckyness. :headbang:

If only some independent or third party candidate would win the election and break the Republicrat monopoly.

If only some independent or third party candidate would win the election and break the Republicrat monopoly.

Gods no. All of the 3rd parties here are insane radicals or reactionaries. Even the Greens are babbling nutsos.

Gods no. All of the 3rd parties here are insane radicals or reactionaries. Even the Greens are babbling nutsos.

Start your own party? ;)

Gods no. All of the 3rd parties here are insane radicals or reactionaries. Even the Greens are babbling nutsos.

Are they truly, or is that simply a perception given to people by the media? I know that sounds like a conspiracy theory suggestion, but it's something you do need to think about because third parties in this country, when they DO get coverage, are almost always shown to be nutsos for some reason or another.

Actually examine the platforms of some of these parties. Sure, some really are nuts, but people like the Greens are pretty good in my book. I'd be happy with them in party.

What do you mean, "If"?

Unless she gets killed before then, shes going to be the most powerful President ever elected, and made so, by Bush, and all the power he has aquired.

Shes kicking Obamas ass in the polls and even the black vote is behind her, becuase they want to back the sure thing.
The Republicans dont have a strong frontrunner, aand wont get one, becuase the best shot they have is Guliani, and he hasnt the moral, or religious support to win. Romney is a Mormon, and therefore not going to the get support of the Conservative Christian Right, and Fred Thompson is a joke.

Get used to the idea of our first woman president.
Its going to happen.

The question is, with a Democrat President, and a Dem Controlled House and Senate, if this clear advantage will enable Hillary to get anything done.
You can gaurantee troop withdrawal, and a stab at healthcare reform, beyond that, the Dem party hasnt had much in the of ideas in quite the while.

The Republicans have proven corrupt and refusing to accept blame, its time for the ball-less Democratic party to have a turn.
They cant do any worse.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.

Huh??? What on earth makes you think Bertie is so much better than Hillary??? :confused:

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.

I have never voted for a Democrat. Actually, I have never voted for a Republican either. :p I have no faith in the two major parties and they never seem to nominate the rare candidates that I would vote for.

But I might vote for Hillary just to get you the fuck out of the country. :)

I have never voted for a Democrat. Actually, I have never voted for a Republican either. :p I have no faith in the two major parties and they never seem to nominate the rare candidates that I would vote for.

But I might vote for Hillary just to get you the fuck out of the country. :)

What, and send him over here? Thank you ever so much.... :p

I have never voted for a Democrat. Actually, I have never voted for a Republican either. :p I have no faith in the two major parties and they never seem to nominate the rare candidates that I would vote for.

But I might vote for Hillary just to get you the fuck out of the country. :)
You're a cruel cruel man.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.
No thanks. Canada might prefer you.
I wouldn't give a fuck.
This.
Huh??? What on earth makes you think Bertie is so much better than Hillary??? :confused:

Bertie is just cool. I mean, where else in the world will you find a minister for finance who doesn't have a bank account?

Bertie is just cool. I mean, where else in the world will you find a minister for finance who doesn't have a bank account?

... or gets caught driving without a licence. True, he's cool that way. But that's about the only way he's cool, really. :p

Ron Paul anyone? He could win. And Hillary's such a bitch while Ron is such a nice guy.

Wow. I was misreading the OP's author's name all this time...

"Conserative Morality"

[/threadjack]

... or gets caught driving without a licence. True, he's cool that way. But that's about the only way he's cool, really. :p

Yeah, he's not really someone you'd want running the country. Though it could be worse, it could be Gerry.

Yeah, he's not really someone you'd want running the country. Though it could be worse, it could be Gerry.

I've said it before and I'll say it again : Hand the country over to Rodge and Podge and be done with it. Nobody will ever be able to tell the difference anyway.

The worse of the Democrats is better than the best of the Republicans.

I find it offensive that this poll assumes I am an American.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?
Resign myself to another 4 years of conservative rule in the USA.

Cancel all my subscriptions to news papers and never watch or read any new until Clinton was out of office. I would do this simply because I could not stand four years of people talking about how AMG SHE'S A WOMAN and everything she does is because SHE'S A WOMAN and everything that goes wrong is because SHE'S A WOMAN and have you noticed that SHE'S A WOMAN!?!?!?! American media outlets still pull each others' pigtails on the playground and require cootie shots. Barf me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again : Hand the country over to Rodge and Podge and be done with it. Nobody will ever be able to tell the difference anyway.

I'd vote for them.

All of the above...except for the ones that have to do with me dying or moving.

I'd vote for them.

I couldn't vote for them :(

I couldn't vote for them :(

Why not?

Why not?

I don't have Irish citizenship.... yet

I couldn't vote for them :(

Well when the time comes I don't think it'll be a matter of votes.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.


1 - Don't. I don't want you, and we don't want to end up down an unnapproved road late at night in Armagh, do we?

2 - Isn't your name a contradiction in terms?

Gods no. All of the 3rd parties here are insane radicals or reactionaries. Even the Greens are babbling nutsos.
What is so bad about being radical?Abraham Lincoln was considered "radical"in his time,maybe the libertarians will become the next major party!

Well when the time comes I don't think it'll be a matter of votes.

Rodge and Podge - Hostile Takeover From Ballybog!!! :eek:

1 - Don't. I don't want you, and we don't want to end up down an unnapproved road late at night in Armagh, do we?

2 - Isn't your name a contradiction in terms?
1.why not?;)
2.I am NOT talking about the republican party,plus i spelled my name wrong

I don't have Irish citizenship.... yet

Oh. How unfortunate.

Isn't your name a contradiction in terms?
A typo, more than anything.
Rodge and Podge - Hostile Takeover From Ballybog!!! :eek:

Ballydung. And don't forget Lucy Kennedy, their ambassador.

Ballydung. And don't forget Lucy Kennedy, their ambassador.

You're right... where have I heard "Ballybog" recently and why did I confuse it? :confused:

Meh, I probably couldn't care less. I don't think America will ever have a president I'd vote for. I also don't understand why you put so much power in the hands of one man (of woman) and why you only have 2 parties capable of doing something, and why only the extremely rich are capable to become president.

when hillary clinton wins the presidency im going to celebrate!

made all the more certain by my being on vacation in aruba the 1st two weeks of november every year--im leaving on sunday for this year's vacation.

i will be very happy that the most brutal campaign of my lifetime will be over and i will be very happy that another republican wasnt elected to continue that party's disastrous policies.

You're right... where have I heard "Ballybog" recently and why did I confuse it? :confused:

I suspect you're not having enough sex. Take the week off and remedy it.

What is so bad about being radical?Abraham Lincoln was considered "radical"in his time,maybe the libertarians will become the next major party!

Jesus Christ dude, why the hell don't you put spaces between full stops and new sentences?

Jesus Christ dude, why the hell don't you put spaces between full stops and new sentences?

It's the conserative way!

What, and send him over here? Thank you ever so much.... :p

He won't last long with that attitude. ;)

You're a cruel cruel man.

Think of it as tough love. :P

Hahah, I live in Canada. I don't have to worry about your stupid politicians.

Hahah, I live in Canada. I don't have to worry about your stupid politicians.

Unless they decide to invade

I'll be sitting in front of the white house waiting for the four horsemen


or selling all my stocks whatever comes for...

What is so bad about being radical?Abraham Lincoln was considered "radical"in his time,maybe the libertarians will become the next major party!

If that happens I'll move.

I voted Kill myself, but I doubt I actually would. . . Ok, well maybe, but only if I took her down with me somehow.
I would be completely unable and willing to live in a communistic state, or what she likes to trumpet as "Socialized". She is an absolute horror to the American government and individual freedom.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA

You really think Hillary Clinton is a communist!? She's not even a social democrat! BWAHAHAHA! Oh, you silly Americans, you're so funny with your total inability to grasp what communism actually is.

Hahah, I live in Canada. I don't have to worry about your stupid politicians.

90% of Candians live within 100 miles of the US border. Leeches.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA

You really think Hillary Clinton is a communist!? She's not even a social democrat! BWAHAHAHA! Oh, you silly Americans, you're so funny with your total inability to grasp what communism actually is.
She may not be a commie(the only party i truly wish did not exist,all the others I just hate and make fun of)But if she is elected she would implement more power to the government,walking towards either a dictatorship(eventually)or a communism(eventually).I do NOT want either.And if I have made any mistakes,tell me I just got up.

She may not be a commie(the only party i truly wish did not exist,all the others I just hate and make fun of)But if she is elected she would implement more power to the government,walking towards either a dictatorship(eventually)or a communism(eventually).I do NOT want either.And if I have made any mistakes,tell me I just got up.

Are you in grade 10?

Are you in grade 10?
No,are you?

The last vaguely decent human being -- an one that did not induce vomit -- occupying the seat of the president of the United Statelets of the Belt Between Canada and Mejico (aka USofA) was Jimmy Peanut Carter.

No,are you?

No. The reason I asked is because your writing, both in style and content, indicates a low level of education, with little thought expended on it.

what would I do?

follow her orders as my Commander-in-Chief...seriously what kind of question is that to ask me?

I would start lobbying to allow eastern Europeans to become president and vote for the governator in 2012. 80's action heroes may have had more insight than we thought. Thanks Sly!!

No. The reason I asked is because your writing, both in style and content, indicates a low level of education, with little thought expended on it.
Where did that come from?I have a difffernent opinon and that "indicates a low level of education"?Now I may not be a genius but I think before I say something(type something) and yet you insult me because of my OPINON(shakes head).

Where did that come from?I have a difffernent opinon and that "indicates a low level of education"?Now I may not be a genius but I think before I say something(type something) and yet you insult me because of my OPINON(shakes head).

No, I'm insulting you because you don't put spaces between punctuation marks and new sentences, or apparently even brackets. Kids in grade four have better grammar skills than you... Think about that.

Also, your comment that the communist party (as if there is one single communist party, which there isn't) is the only party you wish didn't exist strikes me as not being very well thought through. Surely you also wish the Nazi party didn't exist?

If you actually are still in primary school, which is entirely possible judging by your posts, I apologise.

90% of Candians live within 100 miles of the US border. Leeches.

But what about Canadians?

When Dubya got elected I said I was moving to Canada. Unfortunately I didn't have the funds. As to the "Same Shit, Different Asshole" quote: every person running for president falls under that category. So it really doesn't matter who wins. Life is going to suck no matter who the president is. But don't worry because she won't win. America, as it is, will never elect anyone who isn't a white, wealthy, christian, male. America is still a bit backwards, unfortunately.

Exactly. But out of a woman and a black man, democrats will go for a woman. Anyway It doesnt really matter because unforutantly America will never have a female president or a president that isn't white, so Republicans are winning this one. As long as George W Bush is out I dont give a shit.

Exactly. But out of a woman and a black man, democrats will go for a woman. Anyway It doesnt really matter because unforutantly America will never have a female president or a president that isn't white, so Republicans are winning this one. As long as George W Bush is out I dont give a shit.

How shortsighted of you. Why would the United States never elect a woman or a man who is not white?

No, I'm insulting you because you don't put spaces between punctuation marks and new sentences, or apparently even brackets. Kids in grade four have better grammar skills than you... Think about that.

Also, your comment that the communist party (as if there is one single communist party, which there isn't) is the only party you wish didn't exist strikes me as not being very well thought through. Surely you also wish the Nazi party didn't exist?

If you actually are still in primary school, which is entirely possible judging by your posts, I apologise.I am waiting for an apoligy.I'm only in 8th GRADE GIMMIE A BREAK!

I am waiting for an apoligy.I'm only in 8th GRADE GIMMIE A BREAK!

Alrighty, as promised, I apologise. But even in eighth grade you should have been using spaces between sentences for a few years now.

Alrighty, as promised, I apologise. But even in eighth grade you should have been using spaces between sentences for a few years now.
I guess i'm just lazy:D.

Oh yeah,I realize the communist party isn't one party,just like all liberals are not democrats but I am talking about any party that supports communism as a government. Of course I'm a Libertarian so that might have somthing to do about it. Oh and thanks for reminding me about the Nazi party,I wish that idiotic party and all of it's offshoots were never created either.

I guess i'm just lazy:D.

Oh yeah,I realize the communist party isn't one party,just like all liberals are not democrats but I am talking about any party that supports communism as a government. Of course I'm a Libertarian so that might have somthing to do about it. Oh and thanks for reminding me about the Nazi party,I wish that idiotic party and all of it's offshoots were never created either.

Meh, it is fine. At least you're taking an interest in politics at your age. You'll probably have some pretty different views by the time you finish high-school but. Just remember to "keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out". :D Anyway, 2:20AM here, bed time.

She may not be a commie(the only party i truly wish did not exist,all the others I just hate and make fun of)But if she is elected she would implement more power to the government,walking towards either a dictatorship(eventually)or a communism(eventually).I do NOT want either.And if I have made any mistakes,tell me I just got up.

And what is actually so bad about communism? It is a fantastic idea - it just hasn't worked anywhere. I doubt that you even KNOW what Communism is. The media in America, (and dumbass presidents) have made communism out to be some sort of idea which is as bad as the Nazi Party. It's a wonderful idea, but America could never be a communist country - there's too many greedy people there (I'm not saying all Americans are greedy. I'm just saying that there are MANY MANY americans who are.) I will explain it to you. Please listen to it, because I dont think you actually have a clue what you are talking about.

Communism is the idea that EVERYONE is equal, it is a classless society, no one leads and no one follows. It's basically the idea of a perfect society, a utopia, if you like. However, humans are too power-motivated, hence why it doesn't worked. Communism isn't an evil thing, Americans look like complete dumbasses to the rest of the world when they say they hate Communism. Everyone knows what it means. Except the majority of America, it seems. So acknowledge this, please. This is what communism is.

Meh, it is fine. At least you're taking an interest in politics at your age. You'll probably have some pretty different views by the time you finish high-school but. Just remember to "keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out". Anyway, 2:20AM here, bed time.
I doubt it. I have always been a bit critical of the government. About 2 years ago I found out about the Libertarian party and initially I disagreed I eventually saw the logic in their arguments. Although I will probably never use most of the rights from a libertarian government(Legalized Drugs,etc) I belive others should have a choice. But i just got off topic let's continue with our opinons about Hillary.

How shortsighted of you. Why would the United States never elect a woman or a man who is not white?

Ok, my apologies. At this current time, America would not elect a woman or a man who is not white. Obviously some people would vote for them, but I'm talking about the racist, sexist ones. And you would be surprised, but when I lived in America for two years, there were ALOT of these people.

And what is actually so bad about communism? It is a fantastic idea - it just hasn't worked anywhere. I doubt that you even KNOW what Communism is. The media in America, (and dumbass presidents) have made communism out to be some sort of idea which is as bad as the Nazi Party. It's a wonderful idea, but America could never be a communist country - there's too many greedy people there (I'm not saying all Americans are greedy. I'm just saying that there are MANY MANY americans who are.) I will explain it to you. Please listen to it, because I dont think you actually have a clue what you are talking about.

Communism is the idea that EVERYONE is equal, it is a classless society, no one leads and no one follows. It's basically the idea of a perfect society, a utopia, if you like. However, humans are too power-motivated, hence why it doesn't worked. Communism isn't an evil thing, Americans look like complete dumbasses to the rest of the world when they say they hate Communism. Everyone knows what it means. Except the majority of America, it seems. So acknowledge this, please. This is what communism is.
2 things to say
1.Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tryed-Winston Churchill
2.Communism fails when you add in the human factor-Not sure who said that.
Like you said it hasn't worked ANYWHERE! look at NK,China,The Old USSR. Seriously in order for communism to work the entire country would have to be made of perfect humans(impossible)

Gah! I Got Off Topic Again!!!!!!!

1.Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tryed-Winston Churchil

This true about the best of anything including capitalism as the best economic system.

Jesus Christ dude, why the hell don't you put spaces between full stops and new sentences?

There's been a plague of that sort of thing around here lately. That Australis guy and Spyrostan seem to be up to it a lot.

90% of Candians live within 100 miles of the US border. Leeches.

I think they're planning something...

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of what's wrong with the Democratic party. She voted for the first war and has helped to pave the way for a war with Iran. Hillary Clinton will be another corporatist president serving defense and pharmaceutical companies.

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of what's wrong with the Democratic party. She voted for the first war and has helped to pave the way for a war with Iran. Hillary Clinton will be another corporatist president serving defense and pharmaceutical companies.

She's a pandering bitch of a politician. Which is scarcely surprising for a presidential candidate. Though she's my least favorite democratic candidate.

Gods no. All of the 3rd parties here are insane radicals or reactionaries. Even the Greens are babbling nutsos.

BRING BACK THE BULLMOOSE PARTY!!!

She's a pandering bitch of a politician. Which is scarcely surprising for a presidential candidate. Though she's my least favorite democratic candidate.

I forgot about that part.

If she gets elected I'm, going to start praying for the End of the World

I would just be vaguely amused at the prospect of being able to have 28 years of presidency split between 2 immediate families...who says Americans don't like royalty...

I immediately make this point to everyone who tells me they're pro-Hillary, and it shuts them right up. The country being led by two families isn't a Democracy, it's an Oligarchy.

These are both quotes coined by Karl Marx, a man who never worked a day in his life.

I could of sworn he wrote a book or two...

I don't know why "Team up with Al-Queda to kill Hillary" is on there, Al Qaeda loves Democrats because Dems would welcome foreign terrorism with open arms and outlaw all religion and views which conflict with party doctrine. Then again...I do love parties. And cake.

Yes, there's nothing religious fundamentalist want more than the outlawing of religion. Very perceptive, genius.

I immediately make this point to everyone who tells me they're pro-Hillary, and it shuts them right up. The country being led by two families isn't a Democracy, it's an Oligarchy.

Sad;y. it doesn't work on everyone. I tried that on my parents and they didn't bat an eye.

I really don't want her to win the nomination, but if all these people are serious about leaving the country, perhaps this skews the cost-benefit analysis...

Sad;y. it doesn't work on everyone. I tried that on my parents and they didn't bat an eye.

Well, as a general rule, the older they are the more set they are in their beliefs--I'm not surprised. When I was growing up, my stepfather (who was an older man) never bothered to research candidates at all--he would vote for whoever had a D next to his/her name and be done with it. I tend to get into discussions like this with people my own age, who are usually much more malleable that way.

That said, Hillary won't win the nomination (she's far too polarizing) and if she does, the GOP will absolutely love it. Even though I have disdain--contempt, even, for the entire GOP field of candidates (except Ron Paul! Woo!), any of them will walk all over Hillary in a presidential election. A New England Democrat hasn't won the Presidency since Kennedy anyway, Clinton's gender nonwhistanding. If we're going to have a female president, I would bet she's going to be a Republican.

Well, as a general rule, the older they are the more set they are in their beliefs--I'm not surprised. When I was growing up, my stepfather (who was an older man) never bothered to research candidates at all--he would vote for whoever had a D next to his/her name and be done with it. I tend to get into discussions like this with people my own age, who are usually much more malleable that way.

Yes, well, my parents seem much the same way, especially my father. Stupid, really. I've debated with them many a time about it but they refuse to listen to me. I think they still see me as a "naive kid" or something despite the fact that I'm nigh twenty-one. :rolleyes:

That said, Hillary won't win the nomination (she's far too polarizing) and if she does, the GOP will absolutely love it. Even though I have disdain--contempt, even, for the entire GOP field of candidates (except Ron Paul! Woo!), any of them will walk all over Hillary in a presidential election. A New England Democrat hasn't won the Presidency since Kennedy anyway, Clinton's gender nonwhistanding. If we're going to have a female president, I would bet she's going to be a Republican.
I hope you're right about Hillary not winning, but wrong about the GOP walking all over her if she does. To be honest, as much as I despise the idea of a Hillary presidency, I despise the idea of allowing the Republicans control of the office of POTUS even more...if there was a viable third option I'd gladly take it, but sadly in this country there isn't.

I immediately make this point to everyone who tells me they're pro-Hillary, and it shuts them right up. The country being led by two families isn't a Democracy, it's an Oligarchy.
Yeah, it's not like we're talking about Adamses, in any case.

Yeah, it's not like we're talking about Adamses, in any case.

Bit of a difference there, Myrmi. Each only had one term and their presidencies were separated by three others. In this case it's an alternating cycle of one family and the other for a longer span of time.

Yes, well, my parents seem much the same way, especially my father. Stupid, really. I've debated with them many a time about it but they refuse to listen to me. I think they still see me as a "naive kid" or something despite the fact that I'm nigh twenty-one. :rolleyes:
They probably think that because most of us are (d'oh!). Lets face it, young people don't know shit about politics, as a general rule.

I hope you're right about Hillary not winning, but wrong about the GOP walking all over her if she does. To be honest, as much as I despise the idea of a Hillary presidency, I despise the idea of allowing the Republicans control of the office of POTUS even more...if there was a viable third option I'd gladly take it, but sadly in this country there isn't.

Disagree. Part of the reason why Bush was so damaging to this country had to do with the fact that he had a Republican Congress behind him. Clinton could have been a lot more dangerous if he would have had a Democractic Congress. Now that we have a Democratic Congress, it's all the more important that we get a Republican in the White House so they both cancel out the other party's dumb BS. We didn't get that with Bush, and look what happened.

The Democrats, like pretty much everyone else in the country, realized pretty early on that Bush was No Bueno, but for a while now most of them have been operating under the assumption that "Because Bush is wrong, the opposite of whatever he's doing must be correct," which is why we have lousy platforms that largely ignore the real issues. Both parties are basically ignoring the looming budget crisis, which will bankrupt our government if it continues for very much longer.

My vote is going for Hillary, so I'd celebrate. :)

They probably think that because most of us are (d'oh!). Lets face it, young people don't know shit about politics, as a general rule.
Yes, but it would be nice if those of us who do were actually listen to more.



Disagree. Part of the reason why Bush was so damaging to this country had to do with the fact that he had a Republican Congress behind him. Clinton could have been a lot more dangerous if he would have had a Democractic Congress. Now that we have a Democratic Congress, it's all the more important that we get a Republican in the White House so they both cancel out the other party's dumb BS. We didn't get that with Bush, and look what happened.
I disagree myself, because even without the rubber-stamping Congress, a Republican President will still have the authority given to him by the office of the POTUS and that is a very dangerous authority in the hands of any of these maniacs seeking office. I'm not inclined to give it them. I'm not very inclined to give it to her either, but she's the lesser of two evils.


The Democrats, like pretty much everyone else in the country, realized pretty early on that Bush was No Bueno, but for a while now most of them have been operating under the assumption that "Because Bush is wrong, the opposite of whatever he's doing must be correct," which is why we have lousy platforms that largely ignore the real issues. Both parties are basically ignoring the looming budget crisis, which will bankrupt our government if it continues for very much longer.

Not to mention little is being done about Peak Oil, which WILL inflict serious harm if measures are not taken. Global Warming, too, isn't being addressed properly, nor are the important civil rights issues and scientific policies that ought to be followed. More still people aren't being reasonable about the things that they are talking about, as you say. The Iraq War needs to be carefully examined sensibly. This rubbish about either doing exactly what Bush says to do or pulling out fully is idiotic at best...there has to be a better option that will not result in the deaths of nigh four thousand American lives and well over a million Iraqi lives to be in vain.

You're right that the Democrats aren't much better. I don't like them anymore than I like the Republicans. To be honest, what I'd really like would be someone like the Greens. But until something changes that gives us the opening we need to allow for third parties and independents true access to Congress and the office of the POTUS, we're stuck between choosing between the Democrats and the Republicans. And as the most left-winged major party in this country--not that that's saying much given both are right-winged--I have to choose Democrats for now.

I'm hoping that whomever the Republicans hate the most wins just to get them back for voting in Dumbya.

Worst President Ever - Comic Book Guy (not really, or is it? No. Really? No.)

When Dubya got elected I said I was moving to Canada. Unfortunately I didn't have the funds. As to the "Same Shit, Different Asshole" quote: every person running for president falls under that category. So it really doesn't matter who wins. Life is going to suck no matter who the president is. But don't worry because she won't win. America, as it is, will never elect anyone who isn't a white, wealthy, christian, male. America is still a bit backwards, unfortunately.

I would vote for a black man or a woman IF, they had conservative moral, economic, values.

I would be completely unable and willing to live in a communistic state, or what she likes to trumpet as "Socialized".
I must have missed something.

What has Clinton proposed that is even vaguely socialized? And where has she been doing this "trumpeting"? Has she ever so much as uttered the word?

I must have missed something.

What has Clinton proposed that is even vaguely socialized? And where has she been doing this "trumpeting"? Has she ever so much as uttered the word?

Indeed. In fact, she's taken great pains to EMPHASIZE non-socialist policies. She outright declared again and again that her health care policy--a pitifully stupid piece of shit--is not socialized medicine.

Indeed. In fact, she's taken great pains to EMPHASIZE non-socialist policies. She outright declared again and again that her health care policy--a pitifully stupid piece of shit--is not socialized medicine.
Right-o.

If she were actually a socialist, I might like her better. ;)

(Which is not to say I'm in the "OMG Hillary is the devil run for your lives protect your souls!!!!1!!!!!11!!!!" crowd.) It's really fascinating how she's so strongly disliked without having done (or proposed) anything dramatically different than anyone else. I can understand the "meh" response full well, but "run for the hills" is bizarre.

I think the fact that Hillary frightens socialists and capitalists alike speaks volumes about her.

I think the fact that Hillary frightens socialists and capitalists alike speaks volumes about her.She doesn't "frighten" socialists--at least not any I've heard from.

We just wonder how it is everyone's become so convinced she's one of us.

She doesn't "frighten" socialists--at least not any I've heard from.

Her belligerent stance toward Iran and love of censorship scares many antiwar and pro-civil liberties socialists I know.

We just wonder how it is everyone's become so convinced she's one of us.

I'm no socialist, and I also wonder.

Right-o.

If she were actually a socialist, I might like her better. ;)

(Which is not to say I'm in the "OMG Hillary is the devil run for your lives protect your souls!!!!1!!!!!11!!!!" crowd.) It's really fascinating how she's so strongly disliked without having done (or proposed) anything dramatically different than anyone else. I can understand the "meh" response full well, but "run for the hills" is bizarre.

She's semi-liberal, she's married to the anti-christ (Bill Clinton), and more over she has a very decent chance of winning as President. That's enough to get your average wingnut pissing their pants.

(Which is not to say I'm in the "OMG Hillary is the devil run for your lives protect your souls!!!!1!!!!!11!!!!" crowd.) It's really fascinating how she's so strongly disliked without having done (or proposed) anything dramatically different than anyone else. I can understand the "meh" response full well, but "run for the hills" is bizarre.

I heard she eats babies.

*runs*

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.
They're not going to want you, I'll tell you that right off the bat.

As to what I would do - "meh".

Right-o.

If she were actually a socialist, I might like her better. ;)

(Which is not to say I'm in the "OMG Hillary is the devil run for your lives protect your souls!!!!1!!!!!11!!!!" crowd.) It's really fascinating how she's so strongly disliked without having done (or proposed) anything dramatically different than anyone else. I can understand the "meh" response full well, but "run for the hills" is bizarre.
While I'm not exactly crying "run for the hills" I must say I really don't like the idea of Hillary Clinton as President. Despite what some idiots think, she'd be no different from Bush. I don't want to see that again. More so do I not want to see people acting stupid and voting in a Republican four years later and giving us another EIGHT years of absolutely nothing being done right. We CANNOT AFFORD THAT.

Her belligerent stance toward Iran and love of censorship scares many antiwar and pro-civil liberties socialists I know.

Edwards and Obama are hardly less belligerent, and though I'm not sure I'd be surprised if their stances on censorship were significantly different.

The intense dislike of Hillary Clinton is driven by other things than concern over her policy stances.

What's everyone got against Hillary Clinton?
She's a woman, and as any US conservative will tell you, giving women power is SUPER DANGEROUS, ALSO IT MAKES THEM HAVE THEIR MENOPAUSE QUICKER, AND TURNS THEM INTO LESBIAN WITCHES.

Oh, also, at least 24 years with the same family in power? EUGH.

She's a woman, and as any US conservative will tell you, giving women power is SUPER DANGEROUS, ALSO IT MAKES THEM HAVE THEIR MENOPAUSE QUICKER, AND TURNS THEM INTO LESBIAN WITCHES.

Sounds like something Ann Coulter would say :p

Despite what some idiots think, she'd be no different from Bush.Saying it doesn't make it true. You're going to have to explain in what ways she is "no different from Bush."

If she seems more aggressive than some other Democrats when it comes to foreign policy, I'm rather convinced it's because she has no choice: for a woman running for Commander-in-Chief in the cowboy-culture of the United States, it's a safer risk to alienate some anti-war Democrats than to open oneself to the full force of American sexism.

More importantly, unlike Bush she is not... well, some idiot.

Despite what some idiots think, she'd be no different from Bush.

She might be more willing to withdraw troops from Iraq, finally, her stance on health care and domestic spending generally is better than Bush's, she wouldn't veto ENDA or the sexual orientation hate crimes bill, she's unlikely to pursue the violations of civil liberties Bush has....

Depending on how radical you are, it may or may not strike you as egregiously insufficient, but it's something better than what we have now... or than we're likely to get from any Republican.

Saying it doesn't make it true. You're going to have to explain in what ways she is "no different from Bush."

If she seems more aggressive than some other Democrats when it comes to foreign policy, I'm rather convinced it's because she has no choice: for a woman running for Commander-in-Chief in the cowboy-culture of the United States, it's a safer risk to alienate some anti-war Democrats than to open oneself to the full force of American sexism.

More importantly, unlike Bush she is not... well, some idiot.

The problem is that she's never certain of her positions. She's a populist. She'll spout loads of nonsense and whatever she can to be elected. In that sense she is just like Bush, which I apologize for not clarifying.
She might be more willing to withdraw troops from Iraq, finally, her stance on health care and domestic spending generally is better than Bush's, she wouldn't veto ENDA or the sexual orientation hate crimes bill, she's unlikely to pursue the violations of civil liberties Bush has....

Depending on how radical you are, it may or may not strike you as egregiously insufficient, but it's something better than what we have now... or than we're likely to get from any Republican.
You're right. It's better than what we have now. It's not good enough in my eyes...not even close...but then no one currently running is. I have standards set so high the only one who could reach them is myself.

Sounds like something Ann Coulter would say :p
That's because she's absolutely... how can I say this without sounding like a jackass...not right on the issue.

If only everyone in the country thought like one of my friends...
You see he thinks Democrats are commies,and he thinks all republicans are idiots because of Bush.So if everyone thought like HIM we might have a Libertarian president!But everyone is going to ignore past failures of both parties and vote for whoever makes the most unkept promises(sob)

You see he thinks Democrats are commies,

Then he is profoundly ignorant of the Democratic Party, communism, or both.

he thinks all republicans are idiots because of Bush.

All Republicans? That seems a pretty broad generalization to be based on a single politician, even one as important as the President.

So if everyone thought like HIM we might have a Libertarian president!

Which perhaps says something about the Libertarian Party.

You see he thinks Democrats are commies,

Then he is profoundly ignorant of the Democratic Party, communism, or both.


Quote:
he thinks all republicans are idiots because of Bush.

All Republicans? That seems a pretty broad generalization to be based on a single politician, even one as important as the President.

His opinon not mine.And yes he is ignorant.But that would STILL MEAN a libertarian president!and a country full of idiots of course...

I immediately make this point to everyone who tells me they're pro-Hillary, and it shuts them right up. The country being led by two families isn't a Democracy, it's an Oligarchy.

So voting for the person in the race who you want to win isn't democracy if she's related to someone who's had the job before? Interesting interpretation of the word democracy.

So voting for the person in the race who you want to win isn't democracy if she's related to someone who's had the job before?

Democracy isn't just about selecting your favorite from a list of candidates. Among other things, democracy is also about what kinds of people have the resources and opportunities to be significant candidates.

Edwards and Obama are hardly less belligerent, and though I'm not sure I'd be surprised if their stances on censorship were significantly different.

Blatantly incorrect. Clinton's vote for the Lieberman-Kyl ammendment, her refusal to take Nuclear weapons off of the table in dealing with other countries, her refusal to consider meeting with foreign heads of state she considers beligerant, and her "Nothing off of the table" stance on Iran set her apart as significantly more beligerant.

Democracy isn't just about selecting your favorite from a list of candidates. Among other things, democracy is also about what kinds of people have the resources and opportunities to be significant candidates.
Sounds like a twisted kind of technocracy to me.

her "Nothing off of the table" stance on Iran

Oh, yeah, the stance that both Obama and Edwards have echoed almost exactly?

Not to mention Obama's remarks regarding Pakistan, or his stance back in '04 regarding missile strikes on Iran....

Bit of a difference there, Myrmi. Each only had one term and their presidencies were separated by three others. In this case it's an alternating cycle of one family and the other for a longer span of time.

Ah, but my point was that these are not families of a most extraordinary natural distinction and self-sacrifice. Not like the Adamses of Massachusetts.

Ah, but my point was that these are not families of a most extraordinary natural distinction and self-sacrifice. Not like the Adamses of Massachusetts.

I don't think that's really relevant. You're right, of course, but the analogy isn't really apt. It wasn't an oligarchy-esque regime like we're seeing here now.

I've thought it all out very well; after Ubergroppenfuher and glorious Bolshvik-Amerikannis party leader Hillary Clinton suspends the constitution and declares us the United Socialist States of America, here's what I will due in chronological order:

1. Organize a small band of fellow student reistors.
2. Put up propoganda during the night and attract more followers
3. Lead a revolt at my high school
4. Spread the revolt to the rest of Maine
5. Invade south to Boston, then split army to New York and Albany. Close in around Washington.
6. 2 armies will converge on Washington. Massive Riots will be provoked
7. Civil War will consume Washington
8. I will lead Capitalist Revolutionary Army in attack on White House (which will, by now, have been repainted and named the 'Red House')
9. Arrest Hillary
10. Reorganize the USA to a Reagan-style Capitalist Paradise
11. Have Hillary tried on following crimes
War Crimes
Crimes Against Humanity
Genocide
etc., depending on the furthur atrocities she commits
12. Watch Hillary be executed
13. Become State Hero
14. Get Elected President, with Capitalist Party Nomination
15. Make America greatest capitalist nation in history
16. Leave office after 8 years
17. Retire to Chinese plantation (civil war earlier, democratic republicans won)

Run away. Run away screaming. Think the knights in Monty Python screaming "Run away!" and you're getting close.
Actually, I'd probably move to Canada.

Oh, yeah, the stance that both Obama and Edwards have echoed almost exactly?

Not to mention Obama's remarks regarding Pakistan, or his stance back in '04 regarding missile strikes on Iran....

Obama declared that Nukes were off the table. Hillary refused to do so. Obama was RIGHT about Pakistan, and his statement helped to pressure more action out of Pakistan.

I've thought it all out very well; after Ubergroppenfuher and glorious Bolshvik-Amerikannis party leader Hillary Clinton suspends the constitution and declares us the United Socialist States of America, here's what I will due in chronological order:

. . .

A) Clinton falls in the same right-Social Democrat that most European Conservatives and American liberals fall in. She's not even a proper Socialist, let alone a Communist.

B) What Chinese Democratc-Republicans? You mean the tiny minority of anti-social unbrainwashed Chinese who haven't already been Co-opted by the party? The PRC's regime demonstrates undeniable mastery of authoritarianism.

Lets see...
illegal immigration up: 500%
Tax prices up: 1000%
Waiting lines in hospitals: up 200%
Number of happy Jihads: thousands

Im 100% liberal And i think out of the currently popular presidential candidates I would choose Rudy Giuliani. although out of them all I like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I cant believe we could have had Al Gore in Office 8 years ago, or even Jon Kerry 4 years ago, but now we get Hillary. Shes still better than bush or Romney though.

Probably commit suicide...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

Hillary Clinton makes John Kerry seem solid as a rock.

I wore a Hillary Clinton mask for Halloween...

Obama declared that Nukes were off the table. Hillary refused to do so.

This is just a rhetorical game, like Obama's and Hillary's difference over negotiations... Hillary has a pronounced interest in emphasizing the alleged naivety and inexperience of Obama, and she's exploited the opportunity.

Do you honestly think Hillary will be any more inclined to nuke Iran than anyone else? Or that she'll refuse to meet with antagonistic foreign leaders if a compelling opportunity presents itself?

What's telling about Hillary and Obama is that both of them are willing to sound belligerent when they think it's convenient, and that's a bad thing. The only real difference is that they have slightly different analyses of when it is convenient... largely because their campaigns are trying to drive home different messages.

Kinda Sensible, nukes are always off the table in reality, they are the ultimate deterrent but you never use them.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.

i voted groan and move on,but what was left out was projectile vomiting.
i despise bush but i would,sad to say,rather have him as commander and thief then that disgusting lying bag of pus known as hillary.
she is so transparent it is sickening,and her farsical attempt at portraying herself as centrist is laughable,and one wonders why people think of her as a liar?:gundge:

her farsical attempt at portraying herself as centrist is laughable

So what is she really?

i voted groan and move on,but what was left out was projectile vomiting.
i despise bush but i would,sad to say,rather have him as commander and thief then that disgusting lying bag of pus known as hillary

So, you would rather have a leader who has continually shown himself to be an incompetent leader, one who continuously strips away civil liberties, and ignores the constitution, as opposed to a leader who has not yet shown herself to be an incompetent leader?

Why would you not at least hope that she may just do some good, any good, one successful policy, wich would make her automatically a better leader than the one we have?

Why would you stick with the loser?

The same thing I did when Bush one: Party. it is just another step on the path to America's final demise.

So, you would rather have a leader who has continually shown himself to be an incompetent leader, one who continuously strips away civil liberties, and ignores the constitution, as opposed to a leader who has not yet shown herself to be an incompetent leader?

Why would you not at least hope that she may just do some good, any good, one successful policy, wich would make her automatically a better leader than the one we have?

Why would you stick with the loser?
Because even though Bush is a moron with moronic ideas,Hillary is a moron with even stupider ideas.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?
I'd laugh too, especially at the thought of the powers the republicans have placed in the hands of the president. :D


...then again, this former president of the Wellesley Young Republicans is not that far from the republican base ideologically, so it would indeed be "Same shit, different wrapping".

So what is she really?

Fairly Right-wing, unless you ask a Right-winger in this Country. Here, anyone that doesn't have a crucifix around their neck and jack-boots on their feet is considered a "commie radical". Hillary only has one of those things.

Unfortunately, she could be elected. If the Republicans split, Hillary will be the president. I won’t like it. I won’t like it at all especially if the Democrats also hold on to Congress, but I will live. I survived four years of Carter and eight years of Bill Clinton. I didn’t like that either.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/image0016.jpg

Unfortunately, she could be elected. If the Republicans split, Hillary will be the president. I won’t like it. I won’t like it at all especially if the Democrats also hold on to Congress, but I will live. I survived four years of Carter and eight years of Bill Clinton. I didn’t like that either.
But the years under G. W. Bush was a dance on roses, a paradise on earth of love, logic and reasonable politics, eh? :)



And, at least you're not using that "Re-defeat communism" pic anymore. That just makes you look silly.

Unfortunately, she could be elected. If the Republicans split, Hillary will be the president. I won’t like it. I won’t like it at all especially if the Democrats also hold on to Congress, but I will live. I survived four years of Carter and eight years of Bill Clinton. I didn’t like that either.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/image0016.jpg

And that, ladies and gents, is why the US is great.

Unfortunately, she could be elected. If the Republicans split, Hillary will be the president. I won’t like it. I won’t like it at all especially if the Democrats also hold on to Congress, but I will live. I survived four years of Carter and eight years of Bill Clinton. I didn’t like that either.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/image0016.jpg

What do you mean 'survived Carter', if there were anyone else in the WH but him when the Iran hostage crisis happened, without the restraint and international diplomacy of him (ie a Republican) it would have certainly led to a war with Iran, I mean look how quick his successor was on the trigger with Libya when the evidence later proved they weren't involved in the German bombing. Republican Presidents (and also some Democrats like LBJ) had a nasty pension for the belief that some war abroad compensated for bad policy at home, news: it doesn't, only the most petty nationalists fall for that kind of hysteria.

i know she is ugly but it would be nice to have a woman as president.

(and yes I am a libertarian)

Picked everything except the first and last options. I mean I'm not really going to do all of that but still I will never,ever vite for Hillary,EVER!

Picked everything except the first and last options. I mean I'm not really going to do all of that but still I will never,ever vite for Hillary,EVER!
You are probably not old enough to "vite" for Hillary anyways? :p

The problem is that she's never certain of her positions.I think she is. A few moments of genuine uncertainty aside (and I'd prefer "uncertainty" to mindless ideology any day), my impression of her is that she suffers rather from the opposite problem: her conclusions are so well thought out and nuanced, representing such a thorough compromise among the interests involved, that she finds it difficult to describe them in the expected soundbites without appearing to contradict herself.

This is a persistent disadvantage plaguing the Democrats in contemporary politics. Republicans answer to only two broad constituencies with simple (simple-minded, I'd say) ideologies, and despite certain inherent philosophical differences these constituencies have been able to talk past each other since at least Reagan. It's easy for Republicans to be firm: they just need to parrot "more God, more market, more war" and they have all their bases covered.

Democratic coalitions have been, for most of the twentieth century, both more diverse and more contradictory. It is in many cases impossible for a Democratic politician to commit heart-and-soul to any one interest: rather their platforms are necessarily matters of compromise in which they attempt to identify what overarching public good can be procured through the cooperation of a diversity of interests.

In this sense, at least, the Democrats are far better "small-r" republicans, in the classical sense, than the Republicans are. But no one ever said republicanism would look good on TV.

She'll spout loads of nonsense and whatever she can to be elected. In that sense she is just like Bush, which I apologize for not clarifying.Not at all. Bush has always had simple ideas, expressed simply. He has not been afraid of drawing hard lines because he has always counted on loyalty (first from his party, later from a war-time nation) to gloss over his glaring inadequacies.

I think she is. A few moments of genuine uncertainty aside (and I'd prefer "uncertainty" to mindless ideology any day), my impression of her is that she suffers rather from the opposite problem: her conclusions are so well thought out and nuanced, representing such a thorough compromise among the interests involved, that she finds it difficult to describe them in the expected soundbites without appearing to contradict herself.

This is a persistent disadvantage plaguing the Democrats in contemporary politics. Republicans answer to only two broad constituencies with simple (simple-minded, I'd say) ideologies, and despite certain inherent philosophical differences these constituencies have been able to talk past each other since at least Reagan. It's easy for Republicans to be firm: they just need to parrot "more God, more market, more war" and they have all their bases covered.

Democratic coalitions have been, for most of the twentieth century, both more diverse and more contradictory. It is in many cases impossible for a Democratic politician to commit heart-and-soul to any one interest: rather their platforms are necessarily matters of compromise in which they attempt to identify what overarching public good can be procured through the cooperation of a diversity of interests.

In this sense, at least, the Democrats are far better "small-r" republicans, in the classical sense, than the Republicans are. But no one ever said republicanism would look good on TV.
I'd be more willing to accept this if she didn't blatantly act like a populist. That said, I certainly don't deny the general trend.

Not at all. Bush has always had simple ideas, expressed simply. He has not been afraid of drawing hard lines because he has always counted on loyalty (first from his party, later from a war-time nation) to gloss over his glaring inadequacies.
You have a point. I suppose it's yet another in a long line of wait and see games, eh?

i doubt i'd even muster a meh.

I'd be more willing to accept this if she didn't blatantly act like a populist.It strikes me that you must be using a definition of "populist" differing from the one with which I am familiar.

Usually, populists appeal to a constructed dichotomy between the "people" and "elites"--with the populist claiming to speak and act on behalf of the people against the interests of the elite.

While there was certainly a time when the Democrats took up a populist appeal in the name of the workers against the corporate elite (Bill Clinton flirted with, but mostly avoided, this rhetoric), I have not seen Hillary draw any kind of hard line: like the other Democrats she supports universal or near-universal (but not socialized) health care, but she hasn't really spun this as a war against elites, as far as I've seen.

Rather in recent decades the Republicans have (ironically, I think) represented the populist force in American politics, playing on a (largely constructed) dichotomy between an honest, moral, Christian "people" and a depraved academic-liberal "elite."

I don't want to see Hillary in the White House for the sole reason that she really doesn't seem to have any prospect of being re-elected; once the gimmick of being the first female president gets old people will realize that she's just more of the same, and quite likely that will ruin the Democratic Party's chances in 2012.

Not only will a Republican get voted into office, but better candidates in the Democratic Party won't get a chance to run. I consider myself a moderate, but I think it's a shame when the actions of one president ruin the chance for an entire party.

It strikes me that you must be using a definition of "populist" differing from the one with which I am familiar.

The meaning with regard to Hillary seems to be "poll number following", or something to that effect. Which rightly or wrongly is a common impression of her.

I don't want to see Hillary in the White House for the sole reason that she really doesn't seem to have any prospect of being re-elected; once the gimmick of being the first female president gets old people will realize that she's just more of the same, and quite likely that will ruin the Democratic Party's chances in 2012.I keep hearing this argument, and the more I hear it the less sense it makes.

If she's "more of the same," then the incumbency factor should play a significant role in 2012, and we shouldn't think that people will so quickly forget the flagrant failings of the current Republican regime. (Historically, political memory tends to last about a generation.) Unless the Republicans come up with something/someone brilliant in 2012, there is every reason a "more of the same" Clinton would stand a good chance at re-election; at the very least, there is no good reason to think she "doesn't seem to have any prospect of being re-elected."

If you have something against Clinton, say so. Certainly I'm not head-over-heels for her. But I'm getting sick of what I take to be sexism thinly veiled as a "pragmatic" political argument.

I'm beginning to think I'll give her my vote simply out of disgust for the people who mindlessly oppose her.

I'd be a little sick, maybe even enough to want to sleep for the next four years. :|


The last vaguely decent human being -- an one that did not induce vomit -- occupying the seat of the president of the United Statelets of the Belt Between Canada and Mejico (aka USofA) was Jimmy Peanut Carter.
Blah.. He would more then likely rank as one of the worst, or at least not so good, of all time.


And what is actually so bad about communism? It is a fantastic idea - it just hasn't worked anywhere. I doubt that you even KNOW what Communism is. The media in America, (and dumbass presidents) have made communism out to be some sort of idea which is as bad as the Nazi Party. It's a wonderful idea, but America could never be a communist country - there's too many greedy people there (I'm not saying all Americans are greedy. I'm just saying that there are MANY MANY americans who are.) I will explain it to you. Please listen to it, because I dont think you actually have a clue what you are talking about.

Communism is the idea that EVERYONE is equal, it is a classless society, no one leads and no one follows. It's basically the idea of a perfect society, a utopia, if you like. However, humans are too power-motivated, hence why it doesn't worked. Communism isn't an evil thing, Americans look like complete dumbasses to the rest of the world when they say they hate Communism. Everyone knows what it means. Except the majority of America, it seems. So acknowledge this, please. This is what communism is.
No, see.. This is where the rest of the world and the left in the US looks stupid. Most people do know what it is, at least the basic idea, they just don't agree with, nor do they like what it stands for.. and not only because of what it ends up being in real life. Just because it sounds like a really great idea to some, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else. I for one would never want to live in such a world and would do everything in my power to keep from doing so.

Plus, how is an idea which could/would never ever work in the real world, such a "fantastic" idea to begin with?
A nice fantasy maybe, but not idea.


Note: sorry about the little rant, i've been up for a bit over 22 hours now.. *_*

The meaning with regard to Hillary seems to be "poll number following", or something to that effect.Empirically, it can be difficult to tell the difference between "following the polls" in a shallow attempt to get elected, and responding to public opinion because one's democratic theory calls for delegation rather than trusteeship--that is, for public officials who attempt to enact the public will, at least within the confines of what circumstances will allow.

I tend to think that Clinton's relatively nuanced foreign policy positions rather boldly demonstrate that she is anything but a populist: while every other Democratic candidate parrots the simple-minded anti-war slogans that the constituency demands, Clinton has maintained the logic of the original, tragic resolution against Iraq, viz. that a country in America's position cannot write off the use of force in advance.

She reminds us (rightly, but against constant protest from her own party) that Bush asked for the authorization of force in order to "strengthen diplomacy"--that he blatantly lied to the Senate both about his intentions and about the intelligence gathered on Iraq. Yes, in retrospect they might have exercised more caution in wording a blank-check authorization, but Clinton has admitted as much in calling her vote a "mistake."

Which rightly or wrongly is a common impression of her.I think it's rather clearly wrong, with her highly unpopular stance on the war (and possible future wars) being the strongest evidence to bear on whether she is more vote-grabbing rhetoric or nuanced commitment.

She is a moderate, and to a certain mind moderates always seem to be triangulating themselves so as to gather votes. But sometimes, moderates really are trying to serve contradictory interests at the same time, to discover the general will or public interest that sifts out after our disagreements cancel one another.

That used to be the very definition of "republicanism." For my part, I'd prefer an idealist--but I don't think there will be any hope for idealism if we cannot first understand the importance of honesty (and by way of honesty, trust) in democratic politics.

And the criticism of Clinton has been, to date, anything but honest.

Yes, in retrospect they might have exercised more caution in wording a blank-check authorization, but Clinton has admitted as much in calling her vote a "mistake."

It seems a bit late for that, doesn't it? And it isn't like no one saw this back in 2002... large numbers of Democrats voted against the resolution, not to mention the opposition from non-politicians (admittedly a minority).

And then, of course, opposition was the unpopular course to take.

I think it's rather clearly wrong, with her highly unpopular stance on the war (and possible future wars) being the strongest evidence to bear on whether she is more vote-grabbing rhetoric or nuanced commitment.

Her stance on same-sex marriage, however, seems indicative of the opposite.

While I don't really know, I have trouble believing that the leading Democratic candidates are really as "conflicted" about same-sex marriage as they pretend to be... and while most assuredly there are more important things, the fact that no major candidate from the party that wasn't associated with Jerry Falwell is willing to (openly) take the obvious decent and rational stance troubles me.

But sometimes, moderates really are trying to serve contradictory interests at the same time, to discover the general will or public interest that sifts out after our disagreements cancel one another.

I can accept that such a politician would be "moderate" in a sense, but I'm not at all sure that their sort of "moderation" would conform to what is labeled "moderate" in our society--in the determination of which the socially and economically privileged seem to play a decidedly disproportionate role.

For my part, I'd prefer an idealist--but I don't think there will be any hope for idealism if we cannot first understand the importance of honesty (and by way of honesty, trust) in democratic politics.

I have nothing against honesty, but I fail to see the connection.

And the criticism of Clinton has been, to date, anything but honest.

We agree there.

The way things are going with the Bush Administration, I AM NOT taking the 2008 election for granted.

I'm kind of worried that Hillary would get the nomination, because if it's her against Giuliani, there's a chance he'd win and then we'd be in some serious shit. He's pro-choice but he's also a hawk, and he's surrounded by anti-choicers.

I'd also echo the concern that if Hillary gets into the Oval Office, we'd have a whole generation where only two families held the reins of power. Whether she'd be good for the country or otherwise, it's still an oligarchy.

It seems a bit late for that, doesn't it?I'm neither justifying her decision nor suggesting that I agree with it. I am merely pointing out that her explanations have been both credible and consistent.

And it isn't like no one saw this back in 2002... large numbers of Democrats voted against the resolution, not to mention the opposition from non-politicians (admittedly a minority)."Large numbers" is misleading. The Democrats in the Senate split 29-21 in favor of the resolution, so Clinton's vote alone hardly serves as evidence of extraordinary hawkishness.

She made the fundamental mistake of believing that the President of the United States would act in good faith to serve the real interests of the nation. Obviously, she couldn't have been more wrong.

Her stance on same-sex marriage, however, seems indicative of the opposite.How is that? She supports civil unions but opposes same-sex marriage. That precisely defines the sort of centrist republicanism I have suggested as her political philosophy.

While I don't really know, I have trouble believing that the leading Democratic candidates are really as "conflicted" about same-sex marriage as they pretend to be...If you mean that they are probably liberals who personally support same-sex marriage, I think you are quite right. But in the context of democratic theory, is it always so clear that public officials should represent their personal view rather than what they take to be the nearest approximation to the public interest?

Do they espouse civil unions because they must to get elected? Or do they prefer civil unions because they think (rightly or wrongly) that this is the closest American politics can come to equality without tearing itself apart?

I think the answer to those questions varies among candidates. I wouldn't be surprised to find, on getting inside Clinton's head, that she honestly believes civil unions are the best political answer to the issue, if not the most ethical one.

the fact that no major candidate from the party that wasn't associated with Jerry Falwell is willing to (openly) take the obvious decent and rational stance troubles me.Politics is a messy business. In the real world of democratic politics, is it better to take an ethical position that will profoundly alienate the opposition, or is it better to suggest a compromise that represents a moral advance (if not a principled ideal)? What if standing up for the ideal so profoundly alienates the opposition that they rally behind an opponent... so that even a compromised advance becomes impossible?

I can accept that such a politician would be "moderate" in a sense, but I'm not at all sure that their sort of "moderation" would conform to what is labeled "moderate" in our society--in the determination of which the socially and economically privileged seem to play a decidedly disproportionate role.That is, alas, true of all aspects of our politics. But surely Hillary Clinton cannot be held to blame for that?

I have nothing against honesty, but I fail to see the connection.For democracy to function, and function well, every vote has to be a vote for what is best in general rather than what is best for me. But that only works in a context of political honesty.

"Large numbers" is misleading. The Democrats in the Senate split 29-21 in favor of the resolution

Yeah, I knew the proportions, roughly.

You're right that she wasn't particularly hawkish... my point was more along the lines that if she hadn't gone along with it, she wouldn't have been uniquely dovish. It wasn't something that would have required exceptional insight or courage.

She made the fundamental mistake of believing that the President of the United States would act in good faith to serve the real interests of the nation.

Well, if you believe her explanation, anyway.

Judging by the political pressures of the time, I would guess that at least some of the Democrats knew better, but went along anyway. Was Clinton one of them? I have no idea.

If you mean that they are probably liberals who personally support same-sex marriage, I think you are quite right. But in the context of democratic theory, is it always so clear that public officials should represent their personal view rather than what they take to be the nearest approximation to the public interest?

It depends on the subject, doesn't it?

Same-sex marriage isn't really a matter for "the public interest" at all... it's a matter of equality under law. The public, if it wishes to have civil marriage for opposite-sex couples, cannot legitimately deny them to same-sex couples. Reject this, and we are no longer talking about the "public interest" at all, but about the exclusive interest of the majority.

If the president, as a delegate, has an obligation to abide by the public interest, I see no reason that he or she would not also have an obligation to abide by equality under law... that is equally essential to the proper functioning of a liberal democracy.

Do they espouse civil unions because they must to get elected? Or do they prefer civil unions because they think (rightly or wrongly) that this is the closest American politics can come to equality without tearing itself apart?

The former, I think, honestly.

I don't see the "civil unions but not marriage" people as the kind of people inclined to tear anything apart... the religious fundamentalists will be alienated, but they will be alienated anyway, especially if Clinton keeps her word and supports the gay rights agenda she's promised to. Which is not a certainty, considering that the last "moderate" Democratic candidate elected president didn't.

Politics is a messy business. In the real world of democratic politics, is it better to take an ethical position that will profoundly alienate the opposition, or is it better to suggest a compromise that represents a moral advance (if not a principled ideal)? What if standing up for the ideal so profoundly alienates the opposition that they rally behind an opponent... so that even a compromised advance becomes impossible?

Don't think I fail to understand the difficulties.

I am not antagonistic toward pragmatic compromise... but the necessity of it is in part what troubles me.

That is, alas, true of all aspects of our politics. But surely Hillary Clinton cannot be held to blame for that?

I did not say she was.

For democracy to function, and function well, every vote has to be a vote for what is best in general rather than what is best for me.

Under the assumption of political equality... why? I vote for my interests. I trust that everyone else votes for theirs. In the end, the result is something that approximates the public interest.

Yeah, I knew the proportions, roughly.

You're right that she wasn't particularly hawkish... my point was more along the lines that if she hadn't gone along with it, she wouldn't have been uniquely dovish. It wasn't something that would have required exceptional insight or courage.Indeed.

But my point is precisely this: there isn't much "exceptional" about Hillary Clinton at all, which is why it is so uniquely disturbing that so many people find her singularly loathsome. It stinks of sexism and bad faith.

Well, if you believe her explanation, anyway.I tend to, because it fits--and it's consistent, which means I have no particularly good reason not to believe her.

Judging by the political pressures of the time, I would guess that at least some of the Democrats knew better, but went along anyway."Knew better"? I seriously doubt it.

It's easy to say "I told you so," and for those of us who saw where Bush was headed before everyone else did it's easy to pretend that it was simply and purely "obvious"--in which case the only explanation for the "ignorance" of our then-opponents among Democrats and liberals is that they were being disingenuous.

But this is too easy. The fact of the matter is that a lot of very intelligent people were misled and deceived, and the evidence at the time was not nearly as obvious as it eventually became. Prejudgment was rampant on both sides of the debate; it just happens in this case that history vindicated our prejudice rather than theirs.

It depends on the subject, doesn't it?Not really.

Same-sex marriage isn't really a matter for "the public interest" at all... it's a matter of equality under law.Again, I agree on principle, but politics just doesn't always work that way. Sometimes, the legalistic stance is counter-productive, however right it may be.

The public, if it wishes to have civil marriage for opposite-sex couples, cannot legitimately deny them to same-sex couples.In politics, "legitimacy" is not always as important as "efficacy." A Presidential candidate making a principled argument for same-sex marriage risks instigating the kind of hatred from the Christian Right that makes a national campaign nigh on impossible--and that may mean ceding authority to the more reactionary party.

Reject this, and we are no longer talking about the "public interest" at all, but about the exclusive interest of the majority.That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that principled politics divorced from a realizable praxis may, in even a healthy democracy, remain impotent to exert any real influence.

Political change takes time. Sometimes even idealists need to be willing to compromise.

If the president, as a delegate, has an obligation to abide by the public interest, I see no reason that he or she would not also have an obligation to abide by equality under law... that is equally essential to the proper functioning of a liberal democracy.Yes, but a President who stands alone on principle is likely to lose the political capital to change anything at all.

The legal argument is always better made in the courts... and sometimes, for political reasons, it is best to avoid it even their. A judicial decision has the power to polarize an issue to the detriment even of the interest ostensibly served.

The former, I think, honestly.Honestly, I don't think the two motives can be so neatly separated. If a liberal cannot be elected, she cannot change anything at all. If she means to change anything, she may have to settle for less than what she wants, less than what she believes to be right.

That's just what politics is. It is what politics always will be, even for communists and anarchists.

I am not antagonistic toward pragmatic compromise... but the necessity of it is in part what troubles me.If you're committed to democracy, you have to be committed to the necessity for compromise, even on matters of principle. That's always been the hard part.

The problem, in part, is that the disagreement itself is on matters of principle, or interpretations of principle. You and I agree that the principle of equality under the law is violated when government draws a legal distinction between same-sex and different-sex unions. But let's not pretend that our opponents means simply to violate the law: rather they contend that so long as the rights and privileges of each institution are the same, the principle of equality is satisfied; alternatively they believe that the distinction, though not technically "equal," satisfies the legal criteria for allowable classifications according to equal protection doctrine.

Under the assumption of political equality... why?Political equality is not the same as homogeneity. If you want to eliminate diversity, then it becomes true of necessity that what is good for me should be good for everyone else as well.

Indeed, perfect homogeneity of interests is, I think, a theoretical impossibility--even assuming a classless society. Building a particular bridge will benefit some people more than others, for instance, but summing the total utility doesn't necessarily tell us whether the right policy is to build the bridge or not. Yet if we vote only our own interest, under conditions of political equality the outcome represents, at best, nothing more than a utilitarian accounting of benefits.

I vote for my interests. I trust that everyone else votes for theirs. In the end, the result is something that approximates the public interest.It may be that only a small percentage of the population would remain isolated without the construction of a particular bridge. If everyone votes for merely a private interest, they will remain isolated.

But the question of the public good is never about this bridge or that bridge: instead, it is necessarily the question of right. Should anyone remain so isolated when it is reasonable to correct the situation?

Rousseau's notion of the "general will"--which is always general in exactly this sense--was the inspiration for Kant's categorical imperative. According to the corresponding theory of democracy, it is our responsibility always to vote according to what we should do rather than what would be good for me.

Thus, we should support public expenditure for handicapped access to buildings, even though only a small percentage of the population remains isolated if we do not. If we all voted our "interest"--for most of us, lower taxes because we don't need ramps--we'd never support such a thing.

Thus, we should support public expenditure for handicapped access to buildings, even though only a small percentage of the population remains isolated if we do not. If we all voted our "interest"--for most of us, lower taxes because we don't need ramps--we'd never support such a thing.

And I'd begin the revolt immediately. Ramps are in my interest. School bonds, however, are not as I have no children, yet I vote for them on the very principle you mentioned. How are children going to be affected by a lack of school funding? Well, how would I be affected by a lack of handicapped access? I wouldn't be very happy if I were forced to become a shut-in. Kids wouldn't be happy if their school crumbled around them. I see it as a sort of enlightened self-interest. Much as it seems to irk some, we are all interconnected.

Being not american I would smile and only thinks how lucky you are to have Hillary, when we in Denmark have Helle Thorning from the Danish Social Democrats who is running as Prime Minister candidate.. she wants to raise taxes and the tax rate is about 40%..... One word: MADNESS :headbang:

Do the second to last option on the poll.


:D

Do the second to last option on the poll.


:D


yeah, thought about it :D

I would consider moving back to the US if she wins.

She's got my vote in lack of better, and viable, candidates.

"Life`s a bitch, so don`t vote for one"

I cannot bear the thought of another Clinton in the White House. Her old man, despite his popular appeal, was a disgrace to the office. I don`t give a sh*t how well off everyone thinks they were with Bill in office. What i remember of those eight dark years are: An endless assault on the rights and values of the American People, The cost of everything except Gasoline going up 3x while wages went up 1.5x and this great nation looking like it had been castrated because of its leaders refusal to do anything to respond to agression.

The world hates Bush or so i hear, i support him. When 9/11 happened, he didn`t apologize to the people who carried out this act for whatever we supposedly did to cause this act. He did the right thing, he went to kick their ass.

1993- Americans on a peacekeeping mission in Somalia are attacked ( by Muslim extremists), American Dead are dragged through the streets of Mogadishou like animals.
Clinton`s response- pulled U.S. forces out within 3 weeks.

1999?- American Embassies in two African Nations are bombed (by Muslim extremists). Death toll in the 100`s.
Clinton`s response- launched cruise missles, blew up two camel-shit huts at the cost of millions. no follow up to the missle strikes.

2000- U.S.S. Cole attacked (by Muslim extremists), death toll around 40-50.
Clinton`s response- nothing.

What do all of these events have in common with 9/11 besides who carried them out?
They are all considered an 'Act of War' against the U.S.

I don`t care how much flak or flaming i recieve over my stance. The leader of the United States should respond to attacks directed or percieved against us with Deadly Force, not burying his head in the sand while recieving oral favors from an intern. the Clinton`s and their Socialist agenda are as big a threat to U.S. sovereignty as Al-Qaeda. Until the American people wake up and realise that the top tier of the Democrat party have adopted the same mindset as the Communists then this nation is headed down the path to ruin.

Vote for Hillary? not no but HELL NO !

*blah blah commies blah blah*
Hillary isn't a socialist, and certainly isn't a communist. Hell no.

It strikes me that you must be using a definition of "populist" differing from the one with which I am familiar.

Usually, populists appeal to a constructed dichotomy between the "people" and "elites"--with the populist claiming to speak and act on behalf of the people against the interests of the elite.

While there was certainly a time when the Democrats took up a populist appeal in the name of the workers against the corporate elite (Bill Clinton flirted with, but mostly avoided, this rhetoric), I have not seen Hillary draw any kind of hard line: like the other Democrats she supports universal or near-universal (but not socialized) health care, but she hasn't really spun this as a war against elites, as far as I've seen.

Rather in recent decades the Republicans have (ironically, I think) represented the populist force in American politics, playing on a (largely constructed) dichotomy between an honest, moral, Christian "people" and a depraved academic-liberal "elite."
I was actually using a definition more along the lines of "she'll say what she wants to say to get votes" than this definition. That said, your definition certainly fits the word more.



If you have something against Clinton, say so. Certainly I'm not head-over-heels for her. But I'm getting sick of what I take to be sexism thinly veiled as a "pragmatic" political argument.

I'm beginning to think I'll give her my vote simply out of disgust for the people who mindlessly oppose her.

Alright, that's a fair criticism and I have no doubt some oppose her due to sexism.

I don't, however. I oppose her for many of her positions, such as her attempt at a health care plan that will simply drive the cost of insurance for everyone sky-high. (All it does is require everyone to have insurance. It does absolutely nothing else and is a pathetic sham of a healthcare plan. We need a true universal health care, not this stuff.) I also oppose her for her pro-censorship positions. I probably would also oppose her for a variety of minor reasons I've yet to find out about, such as perhaps her position on gun control, and then of course there's always that two-family regime I don't want to see.

Soheran, my problem with any form of Communism is that in order for it to truly work, it requires scarcity--or at least scarcity of main necessities like food, water, energy, and shelter--to be eliminated. But I don't see that as even possible unless we figure out how to pull a Star Trek and invent replicators.

(For those wondering, it would work like this:

You set up the necessary energy gathering utilities, probably some sort of solar energy collection and perhaps some other energy-gathering method that relies upon a renewable resource.

You invent replicators.

You set up the replicators everywhere and then start replicating spare parts for when you need to repair them.

You store the parts until you need them.

Once set up the system will continue to cycle itself infinitely. So long as enough parts are available to repair replicators and the energy-gathering utilities are kept working(through replicated parts) everything else will fall naturally into line. You'd still need labor, obviously, but with free energy and free food, water, shelte(through the necessary parts) available to all, scarcity for the major needs is eliminated.)

Pull that off, and I think we'll see a natural communistic, class-less society develop. But until then we're not going to be able to pull it off.

The problem, in part, is that the disagreement itself is on matters of principle, or interpretations of principle. You and I agree that the principle of equality under the law is violated when government draws a legal distinction between same-sex and different-sex unions. But let's not pretend that our opponents means simply to violate the law: rather they contend that so long as the rights and privileges of each institution are the same, the principle of equality is satisfied; alternatively they believe that the distinction, though not technically "equal," satisfies the legal criteria for allowable classifications according to equal protection doctrine.

Maybe, but I see no reason that the resolution of this disagreement should be in the hands of the majority vote of the public... especially not when there is no way to distinguish between "I'm voting for civil unions because I don't think equality under law necessitates same-sex marriage" and "I'm voting for civil unions because I don't think my marriage should be devalued to the level of a pervert marriage."

It makes sense to make the public sovereign in terms of the judgment of the public good, and as you say, if we really believe in democracy we must sometimes accept compromise here even if we disagree. It makes no sense to make the public (the majority, really) sovereign in terms of what constitutes equality... the entire point, after all, is to restrain majority rule, to ensure that the public good is genuinely the good of all.

Again, I can see the argument from efficacy... but unlike, say, accepting the local democratic will regarding road construction (to choose a relatively innocuous example), where I can accept this sort of "efficacy" as a more or less just way to organize politics, political "efficacy" as far as equality under law is only a matter of reluctant, pragmatic acceptance.

It may be that only a small percentage of the population would remain isolated without the construction of a particular bridge. If everyone votes for merely a private interest, they will remain isolated.

Not necessarily. This problem is precisely why coalitions are a good thing, and why "riders" on legislation--in principle, anyway--are defensible.

Yes, if we vote on that particular bridge according to our private interest, the people who would benefit from it will lose out--just as if we vote on whether a specific minimum-wage worker at a specific workplace should be given a raise according to our private interest, that worker will lose out.

But we never actually vote that way... we vote for candidates, who themselves represent coalitions, and might, even in a purely selfish attempt to get votes, choose to represent that small population who need a bridge. And those candidates, in office, form yet more coalitions to get the legislation they want passed, and in an attempt to secure the private interests of their constituents might align with others attempting to secure the private interests of theirs.

When we have a genuine case of conflict--when opposition to building the bridge is founded in not just opportunity cost, but rather in some real harm it might cause--the community desiring the bridge may truly be shunted out, but then, perhaps it should be.

And it is such cases that a classless society would minimize.

But the question of the public good is never about this bridge or that bridge:

But nor is the political question.

Rather, it is about "this candidate or that candidate" or "support this piece of legislation or oppose it"... and because of the logic of coalitions there is no reason to assume that candidates and legislation will be as narrow as the interests they represent.

Rousseau's notion of the "general will"--which is always general in exactly this sense--was the inspiration for Kant's categorical imperative. According to the corresponding theory of democracy, it is our responsibility always to vote according to what we should do rather than what would be good for me.

Isn't it an old argument for democracy that we can never trust people to actually make decisions this way, thus precluding a body of rulers deciding the public good instead of the public?

I'll accept that it's better if people do... but it seems a rather unlikely possibility. Even if they sincerely seek the public interest, their perspective is still going to be narrowed by the specifics of their life... and most human beings are quite capable of constructing justifications for serving their own interests anyway.

Soheran, my problem with any form of Communism is that in order for it to truly work, it requires scarcity--or at least scarcity of main necessities like food, water, energy, and shelter--to be eliminated.

Why?

Soheran and AnarchyeL:

Do you guys want me to split out argument into a new thread (since it has nothing to do with this one) or should we just knock it off? I have plenty more to say but I don't particularly want to do it here. If you guys still want to rumble, let me know here or fire me off a TG so I can make the new thread. We're supposed to be talking about (shudder) American politics rather than Communism.

Soheran and AnarchyeL:

Do you guys want me to split out argument into a new thread (since it has nothing to do with this one) or should we just knock it off?

Split it off... let's not kill this discussion the moment it starts to get moderately interesting.

Hillary isn't a socialist, and certainly isn't a communist. Hell no.

Free nationalized healthcare doesn`t sound like something from the Soviet Union? You want healthcare? Get a job, i did. We don`t need a nation full of people looking for a handout. What happened to the old ethic of working for something? I`ve never reiceved a handout, never asked for one and don`t need one. Never have, never will. I grew up under not the wealthiest, not the poorest. We managed to get by, if we couldn`t afford it-we didn`t need it. Once i got out on my own, i kept that ideal. No one can improve your lot in life but you. If you don`t like your situation, do something about it other than cry "poor me". If you won`t help yourself, why am i forced to give you help. Toughen up and do it yourself. I don`t want nationalized healthcare, i don`t want a handout and i don`t want Hillary.

Free nationalized healthcare doesn`t sound like something from the Soviet Union? You want healthcare? Get a job, i did. We don`t need a nation full of people looking for a handout. What happened to the old ethic of working for something? I`ve never reiceved a handout, never asked for one and don`t need one. Never have, never will. I grew up under not the wealthiest, not the poorest. We managed to get by, if we couldn`t afford it-we didn`t need it. Once i got out on my own, i kept that ideal. No one can improve your lot in life but you. If you don`t like your situation, do something about it other than cry "poor me". If you won`t help yourself, why am i forced to give you help. Toughen up and do it yourself. I don`t want nationalized healthcare, i don`t want a handout and i don`t want Hillary.

Please try listening to her. She has no intentions of making free nationalized health care. She simply wants to make insurance a requirement for everyone. That would make things worse, not better.

But universal health care will pay for itself in the long run over and over again. Prevention is far better than treating the result, and it wouldn't be that much extra in taxes. In fact, with some proper reallocation we probably wouldn't have to raise taxes at all, and we'd get such a lovely benefit from it.

You're not going to listen to me now, but come back to me when you can't afford that medical treatment you need to save your life. You'll probably be wanting it then.

No thanks. Canada might prefer you.


No, we don't. May I suggest Australia?

If Hillary gets elected...

Well, I won't do anything until she actually DOES something stupid. However, if she does something like ban violent video games, I will be making aliyah in a hurry.

If Hillary gets elected...

Well, I won't do anything until she actually DOES something stupid. However, if she does something like ban violent video games, I will be making aliyah in a hurry.

Making what?

Making what?

Moving to Israel.

Moving to Israel.

Ah.

That doesn't seem too smart, though, given the Israeli government's propensity for being rather...unreasonable. I would think Mirkai would do better in Canada.

Free nationalized healthcare doesn`t sound like something from the Soviet Union? You want healthcare? Get a job, i did. We don`t need a nation full of people looking for a handout. What happened to the old ethic of working for something? I`ve never reiceved a handout, never asked for one and don`t need one. Never have, never will. I grew up under not the wealthiest, not the poorest. We managed to get by, if we couldn`t afford it-we didn`t need it. Once i got out on my own, i kept that ideal. No one can improve your lot in life but you. If you don`t like your situation, do something about it other than cry "poor me". If you won`t help yourself, why am i forced to give you help. Toughen up and do it yourself. I don`t want nationalized healthcare, i don`t want a handout and i don`t want Hillary.
I live in the UK, where we have universal healthcare. Everyone pays for national insurance, that's how it works here and how it would in the states, you prick.
Um... in what sense, exactly?

Certainly not politically or economically, and those are the relevant considerations regarding "class."
When everything else is the same, people will focus on whatever differences.
No, but there are general common themes, and that's one of them.
No, it isn't. I'm a socialist and I don't believe in any of that crap.
I'm not a Marxist, though I'll admit being influenced by Marxist class analysis.

Of course, considering that the sum total of your arguments last time we had an argument about Marxist theory was "Ah! You must be a Marxist!", your irrationality and close-mindedness on this subject should not surprise me.
Sorry, you just seem to stick by his ideas on class like it's some kind of holy grail of rightness, and also seem to have the same ideological worship of an idea that's been tried and utterly failed more than once in the past.
I fail to see how public ownership necessarily results in inefficiency and production at a subsistence level... care to explain?
Because most people are idiots, and mob rule always wins.
Though, interestingly enough, pre-agricultural humans (for the most part) don't seem to.
Actually incorrect, since Neanderthal times we were being led by chieftans.
What is why?
The fact that you seemingly can't help but talk in overlong buzzwords, that do nothing to make your argument sound any better, and indeed make it sound both pointless and extremely pretentious?
How?
What do you mean by 'how'?

If you mean 'how has it never caught on', the simple answer is because nobody cares about a classless society other than the pitifully romantic.
Is basic reading comprehension difficult for you?
Nope.
Yes, a classless society without major inequalities in economic and political power may nevertheless have small levels of economic inequality for the sake of efficiency... so?
In that kind of society, any inequality is a major inequality, and economic power buys political power.

You start using that for the good of a society, and it becomes a classed one.
It's still not capitalism
Indeed, it's some kind of pointless mishmash with the worst parts of both unrestrained capitalism and repressive communism.
it's still far more egalitarian than what we have now.
That doesn't make it necessarily better... not much point having everyone at a pretty 'meh' standard of living, after all.
Impressive!

Next time, how about doing your opponent a favor and actually stating it, okay? So I can have something substantive to reply to... as I did (though you ignored it)?

Whining about how wrong I am just isn't good enough.
Show me an example of a successful classless society, please.
Or because they inherit wealth...
Right. And how do you inherit wealth?

By someone working hard to make that wealth to inherit. And you keep that wealth by not doing anything stupid with it.
or because they are particularly naturally talented...
Talent's useless without the will to exploit it for all it's worth.
or because they had the right opportunities....
And how do you get those?

By working hard to make contacts, and if you were born with those contacts, by working hard to make the most of them.
If the causal factor in wealth is "working hard", then we would expect that everyone who worked hard would be rich. Which is obviously false.
Working hard is indeed the causal factor. If you don't work hard to find what your unique talent is, then you miss it.

Working hard in an office, or a factory, or a woodcutter's hut, will make you richer than the person who puts less effort in. As to people who sleep their way to power, before you talk about that - they put effort in, and exploited one of their qualities.
If they don't work at all, maybe, or if they're horrifically irresponsible... though if you're rich and well-connected enough, even that doesn't necessarily matter. (See George W. Bush.)
He's got his charisma and contacts which he exploits, hard.
But they get opportunities and second chances that the poor never receive, again and again.
No, they don't. It's just that too many people unrealistically dream of going from poor to rich in a single leap. That's a classic way to get the crap exploited out of yourself, and to be dumped back where you started because you were foolhardy.

All these things take time, after all.
The same thing could be said for every social, economic, and political development, ever.
Yes, quite, apart from anarchy, which has yet to do anything but fail.
I do, and I've presented them.
Right... and on all of the important ones, you have been beaten, in a cyclical motion...
The only thing remotely Marxist that I have posted was a reference to Marxist class analysis, which was perfectly legitimate and relevant to the point: the difference between structural analyses of class and purely income-based analyses.
Fine, then, pseudo-Marxist. Feeling happier now?
I don't want a "state" at all, certainly not an authoritarian state... and I did not say it would be without corruption, merely that, like most open democracies, it would not be characterized by the sort of extreme political inequality and authoritarianism that protected the corrupt in the Soviet Union.
You'll never have equality if you don't have a state to enforce it.
Society owns the means of production. Explain how "skilled merchants" are going to concentrate wealth.
By selling commodities at better rates than their competitors?

And if you don't allow that, then how are you going to get "market mechanisms" in the pricing of goods as you put it?
Um, might this have had something to do with the fact that the Soviet Union wasn't exactly keen on supporting rather anti-Stalinist leftists... especially not when they had closer allies to support instead?
No.

Had they been a more efficient and effective force, both politically and militarily, the anarchists could easily have gained much more aid from abroad, and not necessarily the Soviet Union.

Anti-Stalinist governments might have been more inclined to help out - that being said, 1936 was just about the best time for Fascism in the whole century, so they were probably never likely to get that much aid.
The Stalinists were in a superior position both with respect to the central government and with respect to external aid. That's not a matter of Anarchist disorganization.
Yes, yes it is. If they'd have got their shit together, then they'd have been far more respected around the world all that that brings...

Please try listening to her. She has no intentions of making free nationalized health care. She simply wants to make insurance a requirement for everyone. That would make things worse, not better.

But universal health care will pay for itself in the long run over and over again. Prevention is far better than treating the result, and it wouldn't be that much extra in taxes. In fact, with some proper reallocation we probably wouldn't have to raise taxes at all, and we'd get such a lovely benefit from it.

You're not going to listen to me now, but come back to me when you can't afford that medical treatment you need to save your life. You'll probably be wanting it then.

When my times up, its up. Insurance rates are up because of A) people who seek treatment without insurance-the poor, illegal immigrants,etc. and B) the high instnces of frivolous lawsuits in America. Yes, corperate downsizing and outsourcing have contributed to the increase of the uninsured. I have some of the best benefits out there, i was also among the uninsured before i changed jobs. I also go against many in my trade union by not supporting her, but my union fought and bargained for the benefits that i have. I sought to improve my lot in life, i found what i was looking for. I am able to maintain this through My hard work and not the handout from Uncle Sugar. If you`ll listen to me for a minute, "Where is it the Governments responsiblity to provide you with healthcare, when if you are capible of finding it on your own- you don`t?" I`m not saying cut off SSI and medicare to the elderly and/or handicapped. I also don`t believe that being a drug addict or on welfare intitles you to these benefits. I come from a time when people were embarrassed to get handouts and did everything they could to get back on their feet by themselves. Why does everyone think they are entitled to these things? "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and "the right to keep and bear arms" are the only things i`ve ever seen guaranteed by the constitution. Healthcare and handouts for all wasn`t in there.

When my times up, its up. Insurance rates are up because of A) people who seek treatment without insurance-the poor, illegal immigrants,etc. and B) the high instnces of frivolous lawsuits in America. Yes, corperate downsizing and outsourcing have contributed to the increase of the uninsured. I have some of the best benefits out there, i was also among the uninsured before i changed jobs. I also go against many in my trade union by not supporting her, but my union fought and bargained for the benefits that i have. I sought to improve my lot in life, i found what i was looking for. I am able to maintain this through My hard work and not the handout from Uncle Sugar. If you`ll listen to me for a minute, "Where is it the Governments responsiblity to provide you with healthcare, when if you are capible of finding it on your own- you don`t?" I`m not saying cut off SSI and medicare to the elderly and/or handicapped. I also don`t believe that being a drug addict or on welfare intitles you to these benefits. I come from a time when people were embarrassed to get handouts and did everything they could to get back on their feet by themselves. Why does everyone think they are entitled to these things? "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and "the right to keep and bear arms" are the only things i`ve ever seen guaranteed by the constitution. Healthcare and handouts for all wasn`t in there.
I like your lack of reading comprehension. I said before that they would shoot through the roof, not that they're "already up," dippy. Obviously nothing has happened yet because she's not in power.

Also, I don't care about the rest of what you have to say. I want universal health care. It would greatly benefit this country in many ways, and I will gladly vote for it when it comes up. If it comes up to a vote that is.

I live in the UK, where we have universal healthcare. Everyone pays for national insurance, that's how it works here and how it would in the states, you prick.

When everything else is the same, people will focus on whatever differences.

No, it isn't. I'm a socialist and I don't believe in any of that crap.

Sorry, you just seem to stick by his ideas on class like it's some kind of holy grail of rightness, and also seem to have the same ideological worship of an idea that's been tried and utterly failed more than once in the past.

Because most people are idiots, and mob rule always wins.

Actually incorrect, since Neanderthal times we were being led by chieftans.

The fact that you seemingly can't help but talk in overlong buzzwords, that do nothing to make your argument sound any better, and indeed make it sound both pointless and extremely pretentious?

What do you mean by 'how'?

If you mean 'how has it never caught on', the simple answer is because nobody cares about a classless society other than the pitifully romantic.

Nope.

In that kind of society, any inequality is a major inequality, and economic power buys political power.

You start using that for the good of a society, and it becomes a classed one.

Indeed, it's some kind of pointless mishmash with the worst parts of both unrestrained capitalism and repressive communism.

That doesn't make it necessarily better... not much point having everyone at a pretty 'meh' standard of living, after all.

Show me an example of a successful classless society, please.

Right. And how do you inherit wealth?

By someone working hard to make that wealth to inherit. And you keep that wealth by not doing anything stupid with it.

Talent's useless without the will to exploit it for all it's worth.

And how do you get those?

By working hard to make contacts, and if you were born with those contacts, by working hard to make the most of them.

Working hard is indeed the causal factor. If you don't work hard to find what your unique talent is, then you miss it.

Working hard in an office, or a factory, or a woodcutter's hut, will make you richer than the person who puts less effort in. As to people who sleep their way to power, before you talk about that - they put effort in, and exploited one of their qualities.

He's got his charisma and contacts which he exploits, hard.

No, they don't. It's just that too many people unrealistically dream of going from poor to rich in a single leap. That's a classic way to get the crap exploited out of yourself, and to be dumped back where you started because you were foolhardy.

All these things take time, after all.

Yes, quite, apart from anarchy, which has yet to do anything but fail.

Right... and on all of the important ones, you have been beaten, in a cyclical motion...

Fine, then, pseudo-Marxist. Feeling happier now?

You'll never have equality if you don't have a state to enforce it.

By selling commodities at better rates than their competitors?

And if you don't allow that, then how are you going to get "market mechanisms" in the pricing of goods as you put it?

No.

Had they been a more efficient and effective force, both politically and militarily, the anarchists could easily have gained much more aid from abroad, and not necessarily the Soviet Union.

Anti-Stalinist governments might have been more inclined to help out - that being said, 1936 was just about the best time for Fascism in the whole century, so they were probably never likely to get that much aid.

Yes, yes it is. If they'd have got their shit together, then they'd have been far more respected around the world all that that brings...

From the Prick(as you`ve so labeled me):
I don`t like the idea of some Gov`t agency deciding that
1) I have to use their insurance.
2) That the program they`ve picked out is the best for me.
& 3) that the Gov`t has anything to do with my health and welfare.

The easiest solution to Healthcare and Retirement incomes is to make the politicians live on the same programs the rest of us have to live on. They shouldn`t be in charge of giving themselves pay raises either. Its so damned easy for them to tell you all the bullsh*t they do, when they give themselves the best there is. Do you honestly think that the plan they come up with for you is equal to the one they give themselves? :headbang:

From the Prick(as you`ve so labeled me):
I don`t like the idea of some Gov`t agency deciding that
1) I have to use their insurance.
2) That the program they`ve picked out is the best for me.
& 3) that the Gov`t has anything to do with my health and welfare.

The easiest solution to Healthcare and Retirement incomes is to make the politicians live on the same programs the rest of us have to live on. They shouldn`t be in charge of giving themselves pay raises either. Its so damned easy for them to tell you all the bullsh*t they do, when they give themselves the best there is. Do you honestly think that the plan they come up with for you is equal to the one they give themselves? :headbang:
Yes, well. That's how it is.

I agree....the NHS works good in the UK....we have less deaths per head of pop. than the Republic of Ireland which has a private healthcare system......

....Nationalised Healthcare *trumpets and drum roll* W-O-R-K-S

I like your lack of reading comprehension. I said before that they would shoot through the roof, not that they're "already up," dippy. Obviously nothing has happened yet because she's not in power.

Also, I don't care about the rest of what you have to say. I want universal health care. It would greatly benefit this country in many ways, and I will gladly vote for it when it comes up. If it comes up to a vote that is.

I, like many here, comprehend what i want to. If you want it, goody for you. I am opposed to it and think it would bankrupt the country. She`s not in power Thank God, but thats my opinion. If you will take notice, i`ve tried to debate reasonably with you without questioning your comprehension skills, education or resorting to calling you names. However, it seems a large segment of society today cannot do so without shouting down an opposition and why do all the foreigners think they`ve got something enlightening to add to the American political situation? It seems your countries are about as screwed up as ours when it comes to how they work.

I, like many here, comprehend what i want to. If you want it, goody for you. I am opposed to it and think it would bankrupt the country. She`s not in power Thank God, but thats my opinion. If you will take notice, i`ve tried to debate reasonably with you without questioning your comprehension skills, education or resorting to calling you names. However, it seems a large segment of society today cannot do so without shouting down an opposition and why do all the foreigners think they`ve got something enlightening to add to the American political situation? It seems your countries are about as screwed up as ours when it comes to how they work.

I'm not shouting you down. On the contrary I simply pointed out an error, and I apologize for the way I did it. I should have phrased it more carefully.

That said, I would like to know why you think it would "bankrupt the country." Do you have figures and sources to back this up?

I am done here. I believe i`ll stick to II, where I run things under my right-wing view.

What do you mean 'survived Carter', if there were anyone else in the WH but him when the Iran hostage crisis happened, without the restraint and international diplomacy of him (ie a Republican) it would have certainly led to a war with Iran, I mean look how quick his successor was on the trigger with Libya when the evidence later proved they weren't involved in the German bombing. Republican Presidents (and also some Democrats like LBJ) had a nasty pension for the belief that some war abroad compensated for bad policy at home, news: it doesn't, only the most petty nationalists fall for that kind of hysteria.

I guess you don't remember the hostages were released the day Reagan won the election. Negotiations do not always work as was evidenced by the hostages being held for over a year. Iran knew what Reagan would do to get our people back and decided to give them back to us rather than get stomped.

Difference absolutely is inequality.This is categorically untrue, at least within the bounds of any class theory. Even capitalist theorists wouldn't admit to this one, because it actually causes more fundamental problems for them than it does for communism; it actually turns most of their work into unintelligible mush.

While sociologists, political theorists, and economists all continue to use very different definitions of class inequality, we are agreed that my co-worker's making any extra $1/hour more than I do does not put us in a different class, just as we are agreed that sociologists, political theorists, and economists are (though very different in what we do) certainly members of the same class.

Which is why a classless society is an impossibility, as there's little motivation to do anything - I'm quite a good person, so I'd probably work quite hard, until I realised that nobody else was pulling their share, at which point I'd just get pissed off and not bother any more.You have some curious prejudices here.

First, there is the fact that you deny the existence of real, historical classless societies which survive for thousands of years--and in which anthropologists have found no evidence of the pervasive refusal to work supposed by capitalist ideologues.

Second, you refuse to consider the variety of possibilities within the idea of a classless society. If you study the political thought of Thomas Jefferson, for instance, you will find that he strongly prefers a classless (or, in his terms, "one-class") society grounded in subsistence farming: there is nothing inherent to the notion of classlessness entailing that production must be collective rather than individual.

Third, you do not bother to consider the fact that human motivation is much broader than either a) the avoidance of work; or b) material competition. There is a massive body of work indicating that empirically these are rather low on the list of motivations: people actually enjoy feeling productive (especially so when the nature of the work calls upon creative, aesthetic, or other dignified human capacities), and people are actually much MORE competitive than capitalist ideologues would have us believe. The capitalist supposes that if we cannot compete for material wealth (or such competition is constrained) then we have no motivation to excel. But the research does not confirm this hypothesis: instead, it turns out that people will compete (and compete intensely) for pretty much anything society deems worthwhile.

Consider the arguments about high-wage earners: it is often feared that progressive taxation that reduces the utility of additional earnings will discourage high-salary workers from additional productivity. But in fact it turns out that workers judge themselves less by what they net in material returns than by what they can claim as a gross salary: they want to feel they are at the "top of the game" even when increasing their salary does not increase their wealth, a result some socialists have taken as suggestive of the possibility of "scorecard economies" within at least some sectors.

This is not to say that communist theory does not have very significant economic problems to solve: not least of them, for instance, being what to do with the kind of work in an advanced economy that does NOT employ creative or otherwise intrinsically enjoyable labor. But if we're going to have theoretical debates, we should at least be honest enough to ground them in actual empirical knowledge of human motivations rather than ideological caricatures.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.

Anybody who is a fan of Barry Goldwater is in no way liberal, and any attempt to portray themselves as such is just silly, so I won't vote for Hillary.

What has she actually done, or is likely to do, wrong?

What has she actually done, or is likely to do, wrong?

She's a fan of Barry Goldwater. That guy was a bit of a loony.

It makes no sense to make the public (the majority, really) sovereign in terms of what constitutes equality... the entire point, after all, is to restrain majority rule, to ensure that the public good is genuinely the good of all.That's a fine theoretical argument, and in a better society the reality might accord with the theory.

Unfortunately, it is disingenuous and often counterproductive to insist that existing politicians should behave in our society as they should in the ideal society.

Again, I can see the argument from efficacy... but unlike, say, accepting the local democratic will regarding road construction (to choose a relatively innocuous example), where I can accept this sort of "efficacy" as a more or less just way to organize politics, political "efficacy" as far as equality under law is only a matter of reluctant, pragmatic acceptance.Then we're on the same page. I wish we lived in a better world. But we don't. And though I might like to take the most theoretically consistent position in every debate, in circumstances like these it is precisely the minority I would like to protect that will pay the costs of my pragmatic failures. I have to deal seriously with that reality.

Not necessarily. This problem is precisely why coalitions are a good thing, and why "riders" on legislation--in principle, anyway--are defensible.Riders are a defensible second-best to a genuine democratic politics, and in that sense (as in the sense above) I agree.

Nevertheless, democratic politics is ultimately worthless to me if it is not about the moral law, and that means it cannot be about self-interest.

Yes, if we vote on that particular bridge according to our private interest, the people who would benefit from it will lose out--just as if we vote on whether a specific minimum-wage worker at a specific workplace should be given a raise according to our private interest, that worker will lose out.Yes, but the worker might also lose out if we simply vote on raising the minimum wage and we all vote according to private interest--it depends on how many people would benefit (or see themselves as benefiting from) the wage increase.

From my perspective, the people should not have an opinion about what the minimum wage should be: we should have an opinion instead about what is an acceptable quality of life, and if raising the minimum-wage helps to procure that for some people then it is a valid increase. Likewise we should have an opinion about the acceptable accessibility of buildings and remote communities, not the utility of this or that bridge.

Our judgments, in accord with the moral law, can only be general.

But we never actually vote that way... we vote for candidates, who themselves represent coalitions, and might, even in a purely selfish attempt to get votes, choose to represent that small population who need a bridge. And those candidates, in office, form yet more coalitions to get the legislation they want passed, and in an attempt to secure the private interests of their constituents might align with others attempting to secure the private interests of theirs.Again, a fine second-best.

I would prefer constituencies and candidates who don't vote for private interest at all.

When we have a genuine case of conflict--when opposition to building the bridge is founded in not just opportunity cost, but rather in some real harm it might cause--the community desiring the bridge may truly be shunted out, but then, perhaps it should be.It's only opportunity cost if you assume a constant level of taxation. As soon as you need to raise my taxes to build handicapped access, feed the poor, hospitalize the sick, etc. etc.... then there is a real harm to my utility.

And it is such cases that a classless society would minimize.I don't see why, since public works will always involve taxation. If anything, the benefit-cost relation would be MORE explicit in a society that, say, eliminates money... because now taxation will be in the form of labor-hours, and you can bet I'm going to see a conflict between my private interest and yours if I actually have to spend time building your wheelchair ramps.

Rather, it is about "this candidate or that candidate" or "support this piece of legislation or oppose it"... and because of the logic of coalitions there is no reason to assume that candidates and legislation will be as narrow as the interests they represent.In the logic of coalitions, each of us becomes a means to the other's end. We can never hope to overcome our most pressing problems through that kind of logic. We'll remain forever trapped in a politics of the lowest common denominator.

Isn't it an old argument for democracy that we can never trust people to actually make decisions this way, thus precluding a body of rulers deciding the public good instead of the public?And now you're beginning to understand why I raised the issue of trust in the first place. ;)

I'll accept that it's better if people do... but it seems a rather unlikely possibility. Even if they sincerely seek the public interest, their perspective is still going to be narrowed by the specifics of their life... and most human beings are quite capable of constructing justifications for serving their own interests anyway.The important thing is to make a good faith effort to try to avoid justification... or do you think that's impossible, too?

It is only on this reasoning that a democrat should ever feel obliged to obey the majority when his view loses. When he can say, "We decided on what's right," and trust that this is what everyone attempted to do, then it is reasonable for him to conclude, "... and I guess I was wrong."

When he can only say, "Everyone voted their interest," then he can only conclude, "... and I didn't get my way." He may hope to get his way in the future, and he may have a variety of pragmatic reasons for obeying the law, but he can never recognize a genuinely moral obligation to obedience: if he can get away with cheating on his taxes, for instance, in a politics-of-interest he has no real reason not to.

Then we're on the same page. I wish we lived in a better world. But we don't. And though I might like to take the most theoretically consistent position in every debate, in circumstances like these it is precisely the minority I would like to protect that will pay the costs of my pragmatic failures. I have to deal seriously with that reality.

Hey, I'm not saying that people should vote for (say) Walt Brown instead of Hillary Clinton, if she gets the nomination... the fact that I'm not looking away in disgust from all of them shows I accept this argument at least somewhat.

Nevertheless, democratic politics is ultimately worthless to me if it is not about the moral law, and that means it cannot be about self-interest.

It's not "about" self-interest, though. If I'm the only person voting, then I'm going to be obliged to vote exactly as you suggest: with a broad concern for right with respect to everyone.

But if I know that everyone else is voting, too, I can say, "I can accept everyone else voting for their private interest as long as I also have a vote, so I myself can vote for my private interest as long as they have one."

Yes, but the worker might also lose out if we simply vote on raising the minimum wage and we all vote according to private interest--it depends on how many people would benefit (or see themselves as benefiting from) the wage increase.

Not necessarily... coalition politics suggests that the coalition representing the minimum wage workers is going to support the minimum wage increase even if most of its members don't benefit.

This, of course, is actually the case with respect to the Democratic Party--though admittedly there's more than just appeal to private interest there.

From my perspective, the people should not have an opinion about what the minimum wage should be: we should have an opinion instead about what is an acceptable quality of life, and if raising the minimum-wage helps to procure that for some people then it is a valid increase. Likewise we should have an opinion about the acceptable accessibility of buildings and remote communities, not the utility of this or that bridge.

Our judgments, in accord with the moral law, can only be general.

I can agree with that, as far as our judgments go: our notion of a just society should be founded on equality.

But the real issue here is not over ends, where we agree, but means: how close does voting for private interest approximate this end?

It's only opportunity cost if you assume a constant level of taxation. As soon as you need to raise my taxes to build handicapped access, feed the poor, hospitalize the sick, etc. etc.... then there is a real harm to my utility.

Maybe, but these are two separate decisions: level of taxation and what to spend it on.

You can't blame any one of those things for the rise in taxation... it's the general level of spending.

I don't see why, since public works will always involve taxation.

Because everyone is taxed more or less equally.

Broadly speaking, spending on public goods would involve everyone paying a cost and everyone benefiting at a more or less equal level... while in a class society government spending for broad social welfare is always going to come at the expense of the rich for the benefit of the poorer majority.

If anything, the benefit-cost relation would be MORE explicit in a society that, say, eliminates money... because now taxation will be in the form of labor-hours, and you can bet I'm going to see a conflict between my private interest and yours if I actually have to spend time building your wheelchair ramps.

There's no reason taxation would require every person contributing labor... the more likely possibility is that some of the labor spent producing goods for general consumption would be diverted to building wheelchair ramps and the like.

In the logic of coalitions, each of us becomes a means to the other's end. We can never hope to overcome our most pressing problems through that kind of logic. We'll remain forever trapped in a politics of the lowest common denominator.

Maybe, but this strikes me as more of a cultural and ethical problem than an explicitly political one.

The important thing is to make a good faith effort to try to avoid justification... or do you think that's impossible, too?

Not at all. I just think it's difficult, and pretty much all of us fail, sometimes, to one degree or another.

So it's best if we have a political system that can handle that kind of failure... and if we do, and it handles it well, the necessity of making that kind of effort is called into question.

Especially since most people are better at judging what will serve their own interests and welfare than they are at judging what will serve the broad public good.

When he can only say, "Everyone voted their interest," then he can only conclude, "... and I didn't get my way." He may hope to get his way in the future, and he may have a variety of pragmatic reasons for obeying the law, but he can never recognize a genuinely moral obligation to obedience: if he can get away with cheating on his taxes, for instance, in a politics-of-interest he has no real reason not to.

Not at all, for the reason I mentioned above: his acceptance of his right to vote on his private interest is conditional on his recognition of the same right on the part of everyone else.

To violate the public will, then, is to betray the principles that gives him that right in the first place--it is to say that only my welfare matters, when in fact he cannot, ethically, assert anything of the sort. The public has made a judgment as to what serves its broad interest, and since that's the end of politics, he cannot subvert it.

"Life, liberty, and estate"--Locke

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--Jefferson

I know which one I like better. ;)

"This sum of forces cannot come into being without the cooperation of many. But since each man's force and liberty are the primary instruments of his maintenance, how is he going to engage them without hurting himself and without neglecting the care that he owes himself? This difficulty, seen in terms of my subject, can be stated in the following terms:

'Find a form of association which defends and protects will all common forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before.' This is the fundamental problem for which the social contract provides the solution."

-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

But if I know that everyone else is voting, too, I can say, "I can accept everyone else voting for their private interest as long as I also have a vote, so I myself can vote for my private interest as long as they have one."This assumes that summing private interest will actually result in the public good. Does it? The logic of collective action says no, but so does any conception of (positive) freedom that sees in public action the capacity to make more of ourselves (as a society) than what we already are.

Not necessarily... coalition politics suggests that the coalition representing the minimum wage workers is going to support the minimum wage increase even if most of its members don't benefit.No, coalition politics suggests that a coalition will support the minimum wage provided the support of minimum-wage workers is necessary to achieving legislative goals valued by other coalition members. The fact that coalitions only represent the actual power relations in society should be enough to make them questionable; the fact that they inherently treat everyone as a means to an end means that they are necessarily limited in the ends that they can achieve.

But the real issue here is not over ends, where we agree, but means: how close does voting for private interest approximate this end?Not very closely, and especially because its whole logic prefers a politics of dishonesty: I will inevitably strike better bargains in a coalition if I "play the game," hide my real interests, claim dispossession of interest so as to avoid tipping my hand.

Maybe, but these are two separate decisions: level of taxation and what to spend it on.Ah, but it can (and has) been shown that if you attempt to decide them separately you may preclude the possibility of cooperation even for committed contractarians: see Garrett Hardin's Collective Action. If you decide on a level of taxation first, then fairness is going to be a problem because benefits are not distributed equally; if you decide on a distribution of benefits first, no tax scheme will be Pareto optimal: someone will be made worse off than he would otherwise have been.

You can't blame any one of those things for the rise in taxation... it's the general level of spending.Yes, but if you decide on a tax scheme first, you construct my interest with respect to any given thing: it's not fair, from my perspective, to take my money and THEN decide to spend it on things I don't want. On the other hand, if you decide what to spend it on first, I'm only going to want to pay according to my own advantage. It's a simple calculus... so long as we're all thinking as possessive individualists and not morally free human beings.

Because everyone is taxed more or less equally.But if everyone is taxed more or less equally, no one is going to agree to spending that benefits some people more than others.

Broadly speaking, spending on public goods would involve everyone paying a cost and everyone benefiting at a more or less equal level...That's an extraordinarily special case, and highly unlikely in the real world. We have very different interests in the world, even in a classless society. If I ride my bike to work and you drive, if I am healthy and you are sick, what are the chances that I'm going to benefit nearly as much as you do from public roads and health care?

while in a class society government spending for broad social welfare is always going to come at the expense of the rich for the benefit of the poorer majority.And spending for the sick or disabled comes at the expense of the healthy; spending for child care comes at the expense of people who have no children (and some who never will); etc. etc. etc.

There's no reason taxation would require every person contributing labor... the more likely possibility is that some of the labor spent producing goods for general consumption would be diverted to building wheelchair ramps and the like.So then you're going to tax the availability of goods for general consumption, making them more expensive (however expense gets translated into a moneyless economy)... so if I would rather have cheap/plentiful strawberries (for instance) than ramps I won't use, my interest is against ramps.

You can't get around this one.

Moreover, though elsewhere you have recognized the significance of taking ourselves as having free will, your politics negates it: you would have everyone behave as if they are not free--as if they can only vote their own interest--and then call it the best we can do.

I call bullshit. If that's the best we can do, then it's irrelevant whether we have free will--in fact, by your argument, we'd be better off without it.

The significance of politics is that it expands the scope of freedom. Within the scope of "right," there is only so much that I as an individual can do--there are limits to the extent to which I can legislate the best world, the world of moral reason, onto the world of cause and effect.

But a democratic politics establishes the people as a Sovereign "we"--a "we" that, like the individual, either appears as nothing more than the sum of instincts making it up or as something more... a self that can decide to act on account of reasons rather than causes.

It is this sort of political self that can, for instance, support reparations for slavery--an argument that has failed in every form in which the logic of interest has attempted to make it. A society's reparation of its own history is something that it has to do on a principle of right.

This is a concept deeply ingrained, for instance, in the new South African constitution--which tends to explain (though not by itself) why their constitutional jurisprudence is so much more ethical than ours.

I would set fire to a Buddhist on the White House lawn.

Oh..if Hillary was elected.. I would set two Buddhists on fire.
But only if there is a two-for-one special on flammable Buddhists.

"This sum of forces cannot come into being without the cooperation of many. But since each man's force and liberty are the primary instruments of his maintenance, how is he going to engage them without hurting himself and without neglecting the care that he owes himself? This difficulty, seen in terms of my subject, can be stated in the following terms:

'Find a form of association which defends and protects will all common forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before.' This is the fundamental problem for which the social contract provides the solution."

-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau"Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves only to keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much."

-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

;)

"Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves only to keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much."

-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

;)

“The best way to observe a fish is to become a fish”
Jacques Cousteau

;)

What's everyone got against Hillary Clinton?

1. Hillary Clinton has missed 70 votes (17.4%) during the current Congress.

2. Says she couldn't have gotten through Bill's affair without "the Lord".

3. Socialized healthcare

4. Voted for the War in Iraq

5. If elected, Bill will be in the media again.

6. Condescendingly affected an offensive black accent....in front of a lot of black folks.

7. Like media-censoring cunts Brownback and Lieberman, has advocated a more iron-fisted approach to the video game rating system.

8. Is a politician (I know that one applies to....well....EVERY presidential/political candidate, but I fucking hate politicians)

9. Is a woman*

10. Voted "yes" on Graham Amdt. No. 3117; To improve the security of United States borders.

11. Blah, blah, blah. I'm tired, and that's all I'll write for the moment.



*Just kiddin'

She's a fan of Barry Goldwater. That guy was a bit of a loony.

BUZZ! Association fallacy.

1. How so?

2. Not even remotely.

Indeed, communism states that instead of my life being dominated by economic institutions controlled by the wealthy, I should have the freedom to play a direct role in controlling those economic institutions.

3. Agreed!

And that is precisely why we should reject capitalism, which instead puts our lives under the control of distant others.

4. I elevate democracy--at least a properly-functioning, genuinely republican democracy--to a higher ideal than that.

5. "Life, liberty, and estate"--Locke

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--Jefferson

I know which one I like better. ;)


Uhh, let me go over this with you one more time...an answer to all of your questions.

1. Let me think, freedom of job, free press, speach, freedom of a secure life, freedom of civil liberites, I can go on for hours.

2. Get this through your head, people make businesses to gain profit, they hire people to gain profit, they take money and give part of it to their workers. Got it? Now in communism, people make businesses, they hire workers, they surrender profits to government, making no money. Thus, in communism, you don't control economics, the government does.
Please continue ranting about the weathy, im all ears and ready to return what you have coming at me.

3. Please tell me, how so?

4. You entirely missed the point of the quote

5. Again, the bold text in Jefferson's quote was my target, but you missed it. And the second one sounds really good! :p

1. Hillary Clinton has missed 70 votes (17.4%) during the current Congress.Though the campaign has started to cost her this month, Clinton remains the most active Senator of any of the six running for office (http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/194667.html).

"So far this year, Clinton has missed 15.7 percent of the Senate’s votes, far fewer than her rivals. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., leads the list, missing more than half of those votes."

"Obama, Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination, missed 31.3 percent of the Senate’s votes throughout the year and cast a mere six votes in the Senate this October, three fewer than Clinton."

2. Says she couldn't have gotten through Bill's affair without "the Lord".So? Americans have said they'd prefer to elect a sex-offender rather than an atheist. Sad though it may be, neglecting the occasional reference to "the Lord" is political suicide in this country.

3. Socialized healthcareWrong. Universal /= socialized.

4. Voted for the War in IraqVoted under false pretenses to authorize force against Iraq. Not her greatest moment, no, but this thread has already been through that debate.

5. If elected, Bill will be in the media again.A) How is that a bad thing? He's entertaining if nothing else.

B) I hardly think this is a responsible reason to choose one's political allegiances.

6. Condescendingly affected an offensive black accent....in front of a lot of black folks.Um, no. Adopted dialect appropriate to the quote she was reciting, and in front of a black audience which received it very well... despite attempts by conservative bloggers to take it out of context.

7. Like media-censoring cunts Brownback and Lieberman, has advocated a more iron-fisted approach to the video game rating system.Boo-fucking-hoo. It's not like she wants to make it illegal for you and your little friends to play violent video games. She doesn't want to "censor" anything at all. She just wants to make it so Mommy or Daddy... or big bro... or older friend... has to buy the games for you. And it's the retailers who would pay for selling M-rated material to minors.

...

9. Is a woman*

...

*Just kiddin'
Not funny.

Ah.

That doesn't seem too smart, though, given the Israeli government's propensity for being rather...unreasonable. I would think Mirkai would do better in Canada.

We are two different people, dammit. D:

A conversation started from Hilary and turned to communism/capitalism.

FOR GODS SAKE!!! HILARY IS A NEOLIBERAL TOO,SHE HAS NO DIFFERENCE FROM BUSH,OBAMA OR ANYONE ELSE!SHE IS CONTROLED BY THE AMERICAN COMPANIES WHICH CONTROL THE WORLD AND SHE WILL DO EVERYTHING THEY TELL HER TO DO....

MY GOD,AMERICANS ARE THE LIVING PROOF THAT THE INDIANS WHERE FUCKING THE BUFFALOES!!!

We are two different people, dammit. D:

...

DAMN IT! Yet AGAIN I confuse two posters on here.

Well at least this time it's understandable by everyone...your names ARE incredibly similar...

MY GOD,AMERICANS ARE THE LIVING PROOF THAT THE INDIANS WHERE FUCKING THE BUFFALOES!!!

Congratulations on an astoundingly racist statement. My Cherokee ancestors do not approve.

Or I presume they wouldn't. I can't know, since they're dead.

Congratulations on an astoundingly racist statement. My Cherokee ancestors do not approve.

Or I presume they wouldn't. I can't know, since they're dead.

I am not a racist,I am a Marxist-Leninist(no "authoritarian" as somebody said,antistalinist) and I think it's extremely stipid arguing about Hilary or Obama.Do you thing that the american lobbies will not control her or the Democrats???It's like arguing whether Hitler was an racist or not....

I'm already looking forward to the election, regardless of who wins, Bush leaves.

Unless of course Sen. Brownback wins, and the U.S. is turned into a medieval religious society...Kansas. :eek:

Cry.

Then I would finally cross from agnosticism to atheism because no benevolent god would permit that.

BUZZ! Association fallacy.

I resign.

Get sick to my stomach and hope she doesn't fuck up too bad.

forget about Hill, she had her time in the WH w/ Bill. I'm shooing in Al on the ballot, that man is presidential and can string a sentence or two together.
Hill has so many "sponsors" she is gonna have to appoint all these people who have no biz experience but lined her campaign. and i am oh so leery of people being bought and paid for. didja see the BUSH PIONEERS AND RANGERS, omg, hilarious for five seconds of dance time on the stage with that pithy librarian he married who by the way, does wear designer duds we just never hear about it in the news media that is owned by the republicans.
Hill wants to be the first woman president, but she doesn't want to pull the troops out of Iraq. In short, she sucks, well maybe she doesn't suck Bill, but she sucks.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.

I'd get up the next day, go to work, participate in NSG, go home... repeat.

What would you do if Hillary Clinton was elected?And not just conservatives and third parties like me,I mean everyone!And I think I might move to Ireland if Hillary is elected.

Not the person I would choose for the job, but hard to imagine it'll really be a downturn versus the current regime.

I guess I'll go on about as I always do... saying 'yay' to the good stuff, and bitching about the bad stuff.

I'm already looking forward to the election, regardless of who wins, Bush leaves.

Unless of course Sen. Brownback wins, and the U.S. is turned into a medieval religious society...Kansas. :eek:

Or how about Guiliani? Many of the same policies as Bush, but run by an intelligent, clever man? I strongly suspect that Bush's buffoonery is the only thing that's kept him from doing even more damage.

I'm already looking forward to the election, regardless of who wins, Bush leaves.

Unless of course Sen. Brownback wins, and the U.S. is turned into a medieval religious society...Kansas. :eek:

Kansas isn't like that. Not where I live, anyway.

...

DAMN IT! Yet AGAIN I confuse two posters on here.

Well at least this time it's understandable by everyone...your names ARE incredibly similar...

No worries. xD

But I had it first. >_>