Political discussion thread

stonebeard wrote: Politics is a dirtier game than war, with much more collateral damage.  I can't believe the sh*t that goes on in Congress, though. There are some truely despicable goings on there. Attaching totally unrelated bills together to get them passed, and just ignoring doing their f**king job. It's all so sneaky and dishonorable. F**k them all, the dirty b*****ds. Ron Paul at least has a spine. I don't care what his policies are (which can't be too retarded with all the attention he gets), at least he stands up and speaks his mind. He's like Dennis Kucinich but less pitiful and annoying.

Kucinich and Paul don't have much in common at all, but then again if you don't care about their policies (kind of a big deal in politics), you probably don't know that.  And who says people with attention necessarily have good ideas?

I agree that a Giuliani / Clinton election would be a worst-case scenario, it's just scary to imagine.  My favorite of the Dems is Kucinich, then Gravel, but they don't seem to have very much a chance.  Most the other candidates haven't made much of an impression on me, Clinton and Barack just say whatever the people want to hear, dodging making a solid point most of the time, hence one of the main reasons they have the most support.  Edwards and Paul seem okay...


Edited by Bluesaga - December 29 2007 at 12:20

IVNORD wrote: Bluesaga wrote: I agree that a Giuliani / Clinton election would be a worst-case scenario, it's just scary to imagine.  _popupControl(); I don't think the second part of your scare will materialize. Guiliani / Edwards is a more probable scenario

That's what I'd like to see anyway.

Slartibartfast wrote: I had to share this one.  Cracked me up. I don't have anything against Obonga, er Obama.  But comedy isn't pretty.

And Bush did coke. If only we cared.

Bluesaga wrote: I agree that a Giuliani / Clinton election would be a worst-case scenario, it's just scary to imagine.

I'm getting contacts in other countries right now in part to deal with this possibility. Next stop: France!

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You're looking at it the wrong the wrong way. The reason for the Republicans losses during the midterm elections was not because of Bush's conservativism, but rather because of his liberalism and pursuit of a Wilsonian foreign policy. The democratic victories were a message to a party to return to its roots or be voted out. This is why we saw nearly every Republican being defeated, yet conservative stances passing overwhelmingly on ballot initiatives. If the republicans are serious they won't nominate anyone as remotely liberal as Guiliani or Huckabee. Not the McCain, Romney, or Thompson are exactly Barry Goldwaters themselves, but they're certainly imaginable alternatives with Ron Paul being the obvious best choice, if remote, at this point.

The word you use to label his policies is sort of irrelevant. The meanings of the words "liberal" and "conservative" have changed several times throughout the last 200 years. Regardless of ideology, if the War in Iraq had been successful (and there's some doubt as to whether success was possible), he would have more supporters. His foreign policy is interventionist, but neo-conservatism is quite separate from liberalism (in international relations theory). Neo-conservatives want to see a united Israel. They have intense disdain for the UN, and for obedience to international law and treaties. They favor preemptive war against whatever nation they dislike most at the moment (currently Iran). Clinton had a truly liberal foreign policy, intervening in foreign countries several times over human rights issues. Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, a very justified and still popular war. I think they would have had enough sense to avoid invading Iraq.

As for the election, if the Democrats pick Hillary, the Republicans have 4 options that could easily win the election for them: Guiliani, Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson. Guiliani and McCain poll extremely well among Independents. Huckabee and Thompson are likable. The Republicans can practically do no wrong if Hillary wins the Democratic primary (barring a Romney victory). I would, personally, vote for John McCain over Hillary Clinton, becuase I would prefer a "maverick" to a "machine" candidate. McCain's also pretty likable, when he's on, and he is against torture, which no other Republican but Paul thinks is very immoral. Giuliani is an insane, criminal sleaze-bag...but more likable on the outside than Hillary. Huckabee is a funny, nice guy. He seems pretty earnest...he's definitely one of the "compassionate conservatives." I think he's nuts, too...but he's much more subtle than Giuliani. Thompson is pretty likable, but lukewarm. He comes across as an honorable Southern gentleman. Beats Hillary, who seems like a shrill, boring, calculating politician.

On the other hand, the Democrats have one option that *will* seal the election for them: Obama. He's the new JFK. Ethnic, youthful, incredibly bright, and amazingly charismatic. Like JFK, he's still a bit hawkish. He favors increasing troops in Afghanistan, and he's been hard-line towards Pakistan. He's not a wimpy liberal who can be defeated on foreign policy strength. He will win if he runs, because he is just more likable than anyone else. Edwards could conceivably win as well, but he comes across as a bit too leftie these days (for the electorate). I personally disagree with his protectionist stances, but at least he's a smooth politician, and Southern. I would vote for him rather than a Republican, unless the Republican is McCain.

BTW, there are many rumors to the effect that Ron Paul is a racist. I don't know the truth of these statements (I don't think it's important...considering he won't win), but it's worth mentioning, as long as we're saying he's the Republicans' best choice.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: IVNORD wrote: If the Reps are serious, they will never put anyone as remotly conservative as you know who   You're looking at it the wrong the wrong way. The reason for the Republicans losses during the midterm elections was not because of Bush's conservativism, but rather because of his liberalism and pursuit of a Wilsonian foreign policy. The democratic victories were a message to a party to return to its roots or be voted out. This is why we saw nearly every Republican being defeated, yet conservative stances passing overwhelmingly on ballot initiatives. If the republicans are serious they won't nominate anyone as remotely liberal as Guiliani or Huckabee. Not the McCain, Romney, or Thompson are exactly Barry Goldwaters themselves, but they're certainly imaginable alternatives with Ron Paul being the obvious best choice, if remote, at this point.

_popupControl(); That was a wrong moment to finish a message in a hurry as I had to take my dog outside, hence the bad wording...

McCain had his spine ripped from his body by Bush and the religious right. He deserves no ones vote.

stonebeard wrote: McCain had his spine ripped from his body by Bush and the religious right. He deserves no ones vote.

How so? He's the only mainstream Republican candidate who *has* the spine to denounce torture (of course, he's the only one who's experienced it, besides poor Rudy, who has been sleep deprived, I hear). He denounced the Swift Boat ads against Kerry. He's not a xenophobe on the immigration issue, and he's candid on global warming.

He's got several more feet of spine than the other Republicans, and he's certainly got a few inches between The Queen of Special Interests and himself. And that is why I hope he wins the Republican nomination.

Yeah, he really does have to shill for the theocons if he wants to have a chance, unfortunately. And Bush is a Republican president, so McCain's in a bit of a corner. As far as hawkishness goes, he's not a chickenhawk, because he is a war hero, and knows better than anyone else that war is hell. So I think he'll be a bit more competent on the foreign policy front. His wanting to increase troop levels in Iraq *used* to be the Democratic stance, and the results of the surge does make me a bit more hopeful (but still skeptical, naturally) for American victory.


Edited by Hirgwath - December 31 2007 at 02:15

IVNORD wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: IVNORD wrote: If the Reps are serious, they will never put anyone as remotly conservative as you know who   You're looking at it the wrong the wrong way. The reason for the Republicans losses during the midterm elections was not because of Bush's conservativism, but rather because of his liberalism and pursuit of a Wilsonian foreign policy. The democratic victories were a message to a party to return to its roots or be voted out. This is why we saw nearly every Republican being defeated, yet conservative stances passing overwhelmingly on ballot initiatives. If the republicans are serious they won't nominate anyone as remotely liberal as Guiliani or Huckabee. Not the McCain, Romney, or Thompson are exactly Barry Goldwaters themselves, but they're certainly imaginable alternatives with Ron Paul being the obvious best choice, if remote, at this point. _popupControl(); That was a wrong moment to finish a message in a hurry as I had to take my dog outside, hence the bad wording...   Bush a Wilsonian? If you allude to his Iraq-Afghanistan-democracy rethorics, it's just silly phraseology since a. neither country doesn't need it;    b.  we can't create and support a strong dictatorship in either country at the moment. It certainly is Wilsonian. Wilson's crusade was based on blind and sacrosanct belief in democracy. He thought that spreading it to the entire world would result in world peace. Bush's crusade is based on the same irrational belief in democracy, and he's committing American blood to forcing it on a people who have never known it. If a real democratic election were to take place in Iraq without the US's intervention it would surely be an opressive country ruled by the religious majority while the others are trampled upon.     THe Democrats won mostly because of the war. People are simply tired of it. I agree. That's a large part of it.   Since I do believe that a determination is made in the respective parties headquarters, Guiliani's nomination would have a number of tactical advantages. He may carry New York and most of the North East which could compensate for the potential loss of independent votes for the Reps, and they seem to realize that. But with election Guiliani they lose their core. You may pick up some swings and moderates, but it's a folly to forsake your core voters to do so.   Ron Paul has been discussed here a number of times. He's not the best choice. He has no clue as to the inner works of the economy. You have to start looking at things from the economic perspective.   Then let's not go into it again, but I respectfully diagree.

Hirgwath wrote: stonebeard wrote: McCain had his spine ripped from his body by Bush and the religious right. He deserves no ones vote. How so? He's the only mainstream Republican candidate who *has* the spine to denounce torture (of course, he's the only one who's experienced it, besides poor Rudy, who has been sleep deprived, I hear). He denounced the Swift Boat ads against Kerry. He's not a xenophobe on the immigration issue, and he's candid on global warming. He's got several more feet of spine than the other Republicans, and he's certainly got a few inches between The Queen of Special Interests and himself. And that is why I hope he wins the Republican nomination.