Political discussion thread

Novalis wrote: Policy wise, what's the difference between Obama and Clinton that makes it so important one is in over the other? Or any of the Dems at all?

Between Obama and Clinton, not much.  The message is pretty much the same; you vote for your favorite messenger.  However, you can't apply that to all the Dems who had run; for instance, Dennis Kucinich was much more of a leftist than the two present frontrunners.

Twitt quit? 




Edited by Slartibartfast - February 07 2008 at 17:50

NaturalScience wrote: Just in, looks like Romney is out.  McCain will be the Republican candidate.

Out in a final, magnificent blaze of stupidity:

Edited by jimmy_row - February 08 2008 at 13:36

Here we go as a new starting point : Kosovo (I realise there is a Kosovo thread, but we can keep this more politically orientated here).

Edited by HughesJB4 - February 20 2008 at 07:17

^ A day when I give someone a good laugh is a day I feel I really accomplished something. 

As long as citizens/voters/adults take care of their "supposed" interests first, most politicians will effect little in the way of major change or progress. When a leader sees a groundswell of support or demand for something, they'll charge to the front of the pack & show their visionary side.
Now if only we could certify as interference & bias free some  fact checking organization. In a perfect world, any policy proposal, campaign statement, basically anything uttered to either claim a position or solution, or declare a failing or crisis would be subject to a reality check with the results given equal space in time in our media. That way lies, distortions, and unsupported hypotheses would be shown up for the demagoguery it is. Economic policies that don't work as planned, social theories that don't effect the positive changes, simple answers to situations that are not black and white, all candidates would be liable for the truth, not the "truthiness" of their positions. Yes, there would still be differences of opinion. But, at least we could avoid the trap of believing that lower welfare rolls equals less poverty; that harsher penalties fight crime, that financial handouts actually work to redistribute the wealth, that the individual bears all or none of the responsibility for their actions.
But until then, elections are based on the understanding that you need to get into power to do what you want. And when you get there, you rarely are powerful enough to avoid compromises. And people, even the intelligent ones like us, will believe what they want to , often to the opposite of reality.

Salvo_ wrote: JJLehto wrote: I still like Dennis Kucinich and neither of the 2 main Dems EH, why should I settle for a candidate I dont really like? I'm just going to write in Dennis Kucinich for my vote. "I'm taking my ball and going home! I don't care if this helps the opposing party win because I am too busy ignoring the necessity of compromise!" Slartibartfast wrote: There's more to demand than people driving cars. And yes, oil price is regulated largely by demand--unless you are suggesting a conspiracy by "Big Oil" to price fix, which is patently absurd.

Edited by JJLehto - March 12 2008 at 23:18

It's a minor addition to all the other horrible things the Clinton campaign has been doing. This thread moves too slowly to discuss all of them. I wasn't politically aware until the Clintons were no longer relevant, so this primary has really shown me how sleazy they are. I can only hope that the Supers shut this down soon before she tears everything apart.