[:dragonflypro:]

Not to demagogue with the big 'S' word…

But, the number of government intrusions programs she has in mind make it pretty obvious she is nowhere near the center.

For Clinton, Government as Economic Prod

[larrinski]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Not to demagogue with the big 'S' word…

But, the number of government intrusions programs she has in mind make it pretty obvious she is nowhere near the center.

For Clinton, Government as Economic Prod

The problem here that I see, is that the USA is so right of centre, that you think Clinton is talking about Socialism...The democrats are a right of centre party, and Clinton is no different. A few social programs does not equal a socialist government...

[tie]

What exactly sounds like socialism? From the article,

Mrs. Clinton’s approach to the economy would have three main components. She would roll back the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $250,000 while creating more tax breaks below that threshold; impose closer scrutiny on financial markets, including the investments being made by foreign governments in the United States; and raise spending on job-creating projects like the development of alternative energy.

Sounds completely reasonable.

Ah.. Deeper in the article, we get:

But perhaps the most telling example of her approach is how she would try to clean up the mortgage problems. She has called for a 90-day halt to foreclosures on homes with subprime mortgages and a five-year freeze in the interest rates on all subprime mortgages, many of which are scheduled to jump.

The proposal would most likely reduce the number of coming foreclosures. But it would also potentially reward real estate speculators and others who took out mortgages they could not afford. In the process, it could raise interest rates for everyone else, economists say, by forcing banks to rewrite the terms of loans retroactively and to lose money on some.

This is absolutely insane, IMHO. I also think her proposed stimulus package was idiotic.

[subego]

She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong”

While not socialism per se, and AFAICT there is no policy attached, this is just populist class war bullshit.

People being paid what the market will bear? How can you get more offensive and wrong than that.

[peeb]

There are very many socialist programs in the US, like the road system, vehicle licensing, fire services, national parks etc. , and good reasons why that is so - there are many issues that cannot be addressed through markets and are best addressed by social ownership. The US has so demonized this concept that it constantly shoots itself in the foot by dogmatically trying to apply privatization to problems that it is obviously not appropriate for. A little pragmatism, please.

[PaperNotes]

Doesn't matter what Hillarious Clinton says because once elected she would break every promise anyway.

You're talking about a woman who just last week said her mother named her after Edmund Hillary and his conquest of Everest. A little fact checking reveals she doesn't know what year she was born in, or doesn't know what year Everest was scaled, or is a stupid liar.

[Big Mac]

She would be a disaster. It's good that people are starting to get concerned about her candidacy. The funny thing is, with the Dems you've got Hillary, the Black Hillary, and the slightly left of Hillary (Edwards).

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by larrinski 

The problem here that I see, is that the USA is so right of centre, that you think Clinton is talking about Socialism...

...when she's actually talking about a tyrannical dictatorship?


Yup, I agree.
Hillery Rotten Clinton For President
(if you want to know what Nazism is like to live with!)

[peeb]

Troll much?

[besson3c]

It's amazing that I've yet to hear a really air tight case against her... Mostly wild accusations and names, but nothing terribly substantive.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's amazing that I've yet to hear a really air tight case against her... Mostly wild accusations and names, but nothing terribly substantive.

She's repeatedly tried to ban video games that don't meet with her puritanical standards of what is and isn't appropriate for grown adults.

[peeb]

When?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Video games? That's air tight? I would have thought breaking campaign funding laws would come in above video games

[peeb]

When? Lots more wild accusations here, still no airtight case.

[besson3c]

If the video game thing is true, this is pretty far down my list of issue priorities....

I have no reason to disbelieve that if she were male this conversation would be much different.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Your triple negatives are not making my head un-hurt. PS, how is accusing her of being socialist different from accusing Guilliani of being a fascist? Or is he a gender sympathy case too because of the whole cross-dressing thing?

[nonhuman]

It's not just a video game issue, it's a free speech issue...

[PaperNotes]

If the likes of Hillary want to ban the likes of GTA then the likes of Hillary will be one day be met by real klans and real fragging. Banning one freedom of expression eventually leads to more oppression and then a violent result.

Keep violence off the streets. Put it in video games.

[besson3c]

You guys are getting worked up over the tip of the iceberg... Any one of us could provide a LONG list of our constitutional rights being challenged, and that will be challenged by many, if not all of the candidates - Republican or Democrat. Seeing as how the video game thing is not a campaign issue for her, this is probably not an issue that she is going to be pushing for anytime soon.

This is called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. While I don't disagree with your position here, this is a very small issue to base your decision on. There is much much much more to account for.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe you can tell us what's good about her in the first place, I've yet to hear a really air tight case for that

[nonhuman]

It's certainly not the sole thing that I'm basing my decision on and is, as you say, just the tip of the iceberg.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe you can tell us what's good about her in the first place, I've yet to hear a really air tight case for that

The differences between her and Obama and Edwards on the main issues are pretty marginal, especially in comparison to the Republicans.

If the next president is not able to unite the country and Congress, you can count on the usual political bullshit and Congress voting on sharply partisan lines. You can count on the usual mud slinging and attempt to dig up stuff strategically designed to divert and cripple. Hillary does have more political experience than both Edwards and Obama and would probably be good about standing her ground and being strategic about these sorts of things.

Hillary does have experience with health care legislation, and she is without question a very smart woman. Many people credit her as being even smarter than her husband.

I'm not saying that I'm personally going to vote for her, but if she does win it's not like this country will explode... She'll be a substantial upgrade over what we have now, that's for certain!


This is not airtight either, but I also think that what I've said here is not purely emotional.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe you can tell us what's good about her in the first place, I've yet to hear a really air tight case for that

She'll be the first woman president, opening the doors for other minorities and possibly other parties so we can vote for people we agree with, not for people we disagree with less.

[peeb]

It's not at all clear that she DOES want to ban GTA though...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

She'll be the first woman president, opening the doors for other minorities and possibly other parties so we can vote for people we agree with, not for people we disagree with less.

It doesn't work that way... Voting in a woman president is voting in a woman president. Hillary could be the first, or some other woman could be the first 4/8/12 years from now.

And since you're apparently classing women as simply minorities, Barack Obama would have a similar effect.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by larrinski 

A few social programs does not equal a socialist government...

... and yet offhand I can't think of a single government program or ideal that started small and stayed small.

[peeb]

I kind of agree - I mean, Bush was the first actual certified moron to serve as president, I don't think that it will open the door to those with other learning disabilities.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And since you're apparently classing women as simply minorities, Barack Obama would have a similar effect.

In fact, a more profound effect IMO. Woman are interesting. They vote more than men, more of them register to vote than men. They've turned out higher numbers than men since 1964, but you think you can get one to talk politics?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In fact, a more profound effect IMO. Woman are interesting. They vote more than men, more of them register to vote than men. They've turned out higher numbers than men since 1964, but you think you can get one to talk politics?

What does that mean? Women cannot talk about politics?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

She'll be the first woman president, opening the doors for other minorities and possibly other parties so we can vote for people we agree with, not for people we disagree with less.

How is supporting her just because she's female any less wrong than criticizing her just because she's female?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

She'll be the first woman president, opening the doors for other minorities and possibly other parties so we can vote for people we agree with, not for people we disagree with less.

I disagree with the woman. Not a woman President mind you, but the one who's running right now.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I kind of agree - I mean, Bush was the first actual certified moron to serve as president, I don't think that it will open the door to those with other learning disabilities.

That make those who had a lower college GPA than Bush certified imbeciles and idiots

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What does that mean? Women cannot talk about politics?

That's kind of touchy. Actually no, I was marveling at the fact that I can't get one to talk politics.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree with the woman. Not a woman President mind you, but the one who's running right now.

How about Condi Rice?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree with the woman. Not a woman President mind you, but the one who's running right now.

And do you agree with Obama and Edwards?


Folks, the bottom line is there is only a small difference in how the 3 leading Democratic candidates feel about the important issues of our time. I really don't see much logic in being so emphatically against Hillary, yet comfortable with the other 2 candidates.

If you don't like any of them, cool, but why center out Hillary?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Really? You don't think personality or credibility play any part in politics? Wow.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How about Condi Rice?

I don't know a whole lot about her positions on the issues, but my gut feeling is that I'd be much more likely to vote for her than Hillary.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And do you agree with Obama and Edwards?


Folks, the bottom line is there is only a small difference in how the 3 leading Democratic candidates feel about the important issues of our time. I really don't see much logic in being so emphatically against Hillary, yet comfortable with the other 2 candidates.

If you don't like any of them, cool, but why center out Hillary?

There is significantly more to this than the issues. In fact, their position on the issues isn't even all that important. What's more important is the issues they deem worthy of having an official position on, because those are the issues that their agenda as president will focus on. But it will still be up to Congress to write and pass the laws regarding those issues. Also more important is their concept of the role of the executive branch. The Bush administration has an extremely expansive view of the role of the executive and I, for one, would rather vote for a president that I thought was more likely to respect the constitutional limits on the office, even if I didn't agree with his or her policy positions.

And this is ignoring the fact that one of the president's most important roles is as the public face of our country to the world, and commander in chief of our military. Will the represent us the way we'd like to be represented? Will they be able to navigate the perils of international relations? Are they going to take us to war when there are other options? Are they going to refuse to go to war in favor of diplomacy even after it's too late?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There is significantly more to this than the issues. In fact, their position on the issues isn't even all that important. What's more important is the issues they deem worthy of having an official position on, because those are the issues that their agenda as president will focus on. But it will still be up to Congress to write and pass the laws regarding those issues. Also more important is their concept of the role of the executive branch. The Bush administration has an extremely expansive view of the role of the executive and I, for one, would rather vote for a president that I thought was more likely to respect the constitutional limits on the office, even if I didn't agree with his or her policy positions.

The most important thing is the judges she or he would appoint.

[OreoCookie]

I don't think you even know what socialism means. Few of you have ever been to a socialist country. The word `socialist' shouldn't be used to insult and scare people.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There is significantly more to this than the issues. In fact, their position on the issues isn't even all that important. What's more important is the issues they deem worthy of having an official position on, because those are the issues that their agenda as president will focus on. But it will still be up to Congress to write and pass the laws regarding those issues. Also more important is their concept of the role of the executive branch. The Bush administration has an extremely expansive view of the role of the executive and I, for one, would rather vote for a president that I thought was more likely to respect the constitutional limits on the office, even if I didn't agree with his or her policy positions.

And this is ignoring the fact that one of the president's most important roles is as the public face of our country to the world, and commander in chief of our military. Will the represent us the way we'd like to be represented? Will they be able to navigate the perils of international relations? Are they going to take us to war when there are other options? Are they going to refuse to go to war in favor of diplomacy even after it's too late?

So what evidence do you have that Hillary would steamroller past Congress policies that disrespect constitutional limits? Having opinions on constitutional limits is one thing, but having the audacity to push these pet projects through in a way that circumvents the legislative process is a significant charge that needs to be substantiated.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And do you agree with Obama and Edwards?

No not particularly, but I find Obama a much more acceptable representative than Hillary "it's a right-wing conspiracy" Clinton. If you want an end to divisive politics and rhetoric, Hillary's not your girl.

Folks, the bottom line is there is only a small difference in how the 3 leading Democratic candidates feel about the important issues of our time. I really don't see much logic in being so emphatically against Hillary, yet comfortable with the other 2 candidates.

If you don't like any of them, cool, but why center out Hillary?

She's too divisive a figure. I'm tired of "right-wing" this and "left-wing" that. It's old. Truth be told, I'm only centering her out because she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. Edwards is no better. Hillary should try to stay above it as a leader, but she can't because she's not a good leader. She cries for the country she loves as if Obama and Edwards would ruin it. Not cool.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How about Condi Rice?

She's not running.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think you even know what socialism means. Few of you have ever been to a socialist country. The word `socialist' shouldn't be used to insult and scare people.

How do you define socialism and which socialist countries have you been to?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No not particularly, but I find Obama a much more acceptable representative than Hillary "it's a right-wing conspiracy" Clinton. If you want an end to divisive politics and rhetoric, Hillary's not your girl.


She's too divisive a figure. I'm tired of "right-wing" this and "left-wing" that. It's old. Truth be told, I'm only centering her out because she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. Edwards is no better. Hillary should try to stay above it as a leader, but she can't because she's not a good leader. She cries for the country she loves as if Obama and Edwards would ruin it. Not cool.

This I agree with, and is partly why I wouldn't vote for her myself. Based solely on my experience in this lounge, she does seem polarizing. What I'm trying to do is figure out exactly why this is...

She does seem rather underhanded and manipulative, but then again, I don't think it is overly cynical of me to say that all politicians are, and perhaps have to be. A great part of politics is brokering deals and proposing fair compromises. I prefer Obama's approach to this, but at times I also wonder if it's not naive?

Edwards has said it best, and that is that those with power are not going to relinquish power because you ask them nicely. It literally has to be taken away from them. Why should we think that the HMOs and insurance companies will strike a deal that serves the best interests of the people because Obama puts them in a room and makes them talk? I think this is the approach that you *should* start with, and I support this. But what Obama doesn't say is that when push comes to shove, I would bet that he would forcefully relinquish power where appropriate just like any president.

How do you get powerful groups to relinquish power? You need to be manipulative and crafty. You need to make them think that they are getting something out of the compromise and protecting their image by not appearing to have simply given in to demands. Look at the dynamics of any strike (such as the current writer's strike), and it is all about the same thing - respect, power, and image.

At the end of the day, I think that Hillary would be fine if put in these sort of positions. While I do agree that she is polarizing, I think it is for all the wrong reasons. This is what I take issue with.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

She does seem rather underhanded and manipulative, but then again, I don't think it is overly cynical of me to say that all politicians are, and perhaps have to be. A great part of politics is brokering deals and proposing fair compromises. I prefer Obama's approach to this, but at times I also wonder if it's not naive?

I agree with shrewd. I do not agree with slanderous. Some are better at riding this balance than others, Hillary being worst of all IMO.

Edwards has said it best, and that is that those with power are not going to relinquish power because you ask them nicely. It literally has to be taken away from them. Why should we think that the HMOs and insurance companies will strike a deal that serves the best interests of the people because Obama puts them in a room and makes them talk? I think this is the approach that you *should* start with, and I support this. But what Obama doesn't say is that when push comes to shove, I would bet that he would forcefully relinquish power where appropriate just like any president.

How do you get powerful groups to relinquish power? You need to be manipulative and crafty. You need to make them think that they are getting something out of the compromise and protecting their image by not appearing to have simply given in to demands. Look at the dynamics of any strike (such as the current writer's strike), and it is all about the same thing - respect, power, and image.

How's that writers strike going for them? I don't miss the Oscars, do you? Okay 'The Office' maybe, but not the Oscars.

At the end of the day, I think that Hillary would be fine if put in these sort of positions. While I do agree that she is polarizing, I think it is for all the wrong reasons. This is what I take issue with.

There's too much on her besson. Too much. She may be fine all the way to the nomination, but it'll get ugly every day after. From cattle futures to forgetting where she put those blasted Rose law firm billing records, to false testimony about co-defendant Ira Magaziner, to... it just goes on and on and there will simply be too much of it for the American public to stomach. She should have stayed on as the president of the Wellesley College chapter of College Republicans.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I guess we'll have to wait and see... Until I understand the actual common ground behind this mini anti-Hillary Clinton thing we've got going on, I'm inclined to think that the premise of her inevitable disastrous presidential performance is being overly inflated.


I honestly think that this time around, it is the Democrats race to lose. I no longer see a strong machine like united Republican front like I did in years past. Looking at the three front runner Democratic candidates, they honestly see more united to me than the Republican party, and of course many studies indicate that when things aren't going well in the country, the populace is more inclined to give the challenger a chance. The last time I checked polling data it also echoed the idea that a Democrat is favored to win.

This isn't to say "rah rah Democrats", but I haven't been impressed with anything on the Republican side really outside of cherry picking Ron Paul positions, and I'm anxious for a change. Therefore, I'm anxious for one of the three Democratic candidates to take over office.

[Chongo]

Don't forget Norman Hsu and the donations from China Town
FBI: Clinton Fundraiser Confesses - September 20, 2007

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what evidence do you have that Hillary would steamroller past Congress policies that disrespect constitutional limits? Having opinions on constitutional limits is one thing, but having the audacity to push these pet projects through in a way that circumvents the legislative process is a significant charge that needs to be substantiated.

When did I say she would?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: I guess we'll have to wait and see... Until I understand the actual common ground behind this mini anti-Hillary Clinton thing we've got going on, I'm inclined to think that the premise of her inevitable disastrous presidential performance is being overly inflated.

I don't think it's "mini" and I think the current level of "inevitable disastrous presidential performance" sentiment will only worsen. If she gets the nod, the only hope she'll have is a Clinton/Obama ticket. She just has to make sure she slows down the slander wagon.

The last time I checked polling data it also echoed the idea that a Democrat is favored to win.

I wouldn't trust polling data on whether or not chocolate is tasty.

This isn't to say "rah rah Democrats", but I haven't been impressed with anything on the Republican side really outside of cherry picking Ron Paul positions, and I'm anxious for a change. Therefore, I'm anxious for one of the three Democratic candidates to take over office.

I still maintain that this country is primarily center to right-of-center regardless of polling data. The current list of Republicans is nothing to get excited about I grant you, but the best one has yet to announce. Whomever that is. There is such fanfare going on over the caucuses right now that folks will be entirely bored with the whole lot of them by late February. A fresh Republican face will sweep. I'd bet on it.

Okay, first I'd get a Mac Pro then I'll bet on it.