Jump to content

US Elections: When Murder isn't Murder


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Don't worry, they'll join him should he win the primary and even more will come should he win the Presidency. It's only the current step that requires dreamers -- if one can show that the impossible is in fact possible, the practical, realistic people will eventually come around.

This is actually an excellent point. For a people that pride themselves on great flexibility, capacity for change, and out-of-the-box thinking, Americans seem strangely risk-averse and conservative, almost defeatist, in their view of politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Don't worry, they'll join him should he win the primary and even more will come should he win the Presidency. It's only the current step that requires dreamers -- if one can show that the impossible is in fact possible, the practical, realistic people will eventually come around.

What does this even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Really, the comparison holds no water on any level save gender.Thatcher supported killing unions, privatizing schools, deregulation of the financial industry, opposition to any immigration...I mean,  Thatcher was so right wing that the National Front - the British version of Stormfront in the US - collapsed because all their voters voted for Thatcher's party instead. She stood against stopping Apartheid! 

Sorry to interject, but this is not an accurate portrayal of Thatcher. She did not support privatizing schools and did not oppose any immigration. It is also incorrect to portray her as being equivalent to the National Front. The NF was a neo-Nazi party. It wanted nothing to do with globalisation, deregulation or neo-liberalism. It wanted state control of the economy and complete "deportation" of all non-whites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd know better, hereward, but her wiki article states otherwise. Her candidacy in 1979 supposedly killed any semblance of the National front party. She specifically reduced immigration from Asians and stated it was because she wanted to keep Britain british. Any of that untrue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton confronted some Black Lives Matter protesters:

Quote

 

The protesters shouted that "black youth are not super predators," taking issue with a phrase then-first lady Hillary Clinton used in a 1996 speech about violent crime committed by young people. They heckled Bill Clinton for the 1994 crime bill he signed into law as president that cracked down on gangs but also put more non-violent offenders in prison for longer stays.

"You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter," the former president told protesters.

...

He also defended Hillary Clinton's use of the phrase "super predators."

"I don't know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack, and sent them out in the streets to murder other African-American children," the former president said. "Maybe you thought they were good citizens -- she didn't."

 

Certain media outlets (e.g. Slate) were quick to pounce on this, but I suspect he knows his audience better than they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

This is another FUD point from republicans that I still don't understand. She openly supports LGBT rights. She supports immigration expansion. She supports police revision and jail revision. She openly opposes dramatic military intervention and multiple wars in the past. She openly advocates coalitions for intervention. The idea that she is remotely comparable to Thatcher is essentially rooted in that they're both women, and that's all. If that is what people believe, they were such low-information people that they were never going to vote for Clinton in a million years, and that's entirely because  their idea of what a woman politician should be like is so completely wrong.

I dont really know or care what a FUD Republican point is. The idea that she is only thought of as remotely comparable to Thatcher because they are both female is wishful thinking that ignores Hillary's image as the type of Hawk we could imagine getting us involved in yet another ill advised regime change/intervention. The type of Hawk we could imagine placing a Destroyer off the Venezuelan coastline and shelling  the populace to save them from their leaders maybe?

This is from the 2nd debate of 2016 Dem primary on CBS-  Hillary is a WarHawk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit misleading to insinuate that these complaints over Hillary's foreign policy are Republican talking points. The criticism has been firmly from the left, it's been on MSNBC, Democracy Now, from Amy Goodman, Julian Assange. Cornel West, Bill Maher and others in Mother Jones and The Nation magazines.

Here is Katrina Vanden Heuvel (Editor, Publisher, pt. owner) of The Nation magazine. The Nation has endorsed Sanders for 2016. As Katrina points out, Hillary would be preferable over any of the Republicans, but she views Hillary as too Hawkish on foreign policy and feels we can do better by electing Sanders. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I dont really know or care what a FUD Republican point is. The idea that she is only thought of as remotely comparable to Thatcher because they are both female is wishful thinking that ignores Hillary's image as the type of Hawk we could imagine getting us involved in yet another ill advised regime change/intervention. The type of Hawk we could imagine placing a Destroyer off the Venezuelan coastline and shelling  the populace to save them from their leaders maybe?

This is from the 2nd debate of 2016 Dem primary on CBS-  Hillary is a WarHawk

 

If you wanna say Clinton is hawish, sure, she is. It's the Thatcher comparison that makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You'd know better, hereward, but her wiki article states otherwise. Her candidacy in 1979 supposedly killed any semblance of the National front party. She specifically reduced immigration from Asians and stated it was because she wanted to keep Britain british. Any of that untrue?

As one of the most divisive politicians ever, I'd treat her Wikipedia entry with caution. Neither of the claims are precisely untrue while being misleading. She did speak against large scale immigration in the 60s, but so did people from across the political spectrum, the unions being particularly opposed.  She made no substantive changes to immigration policy. As for the NF, that's a smear. As the US is discovering, there are substantial numbers of people of an authoritarian bent who are attracted by those they perceive to be strong leaders or want "change" of some/any sort to address national decline. That doesn't make anyone they attach themselves too politically identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, no matter who we elect this year things will get better, we can't go on the current path because it will lead us to the likes of Greece and other socialist nations like them. Even if we elect a socialist they can learn from the past Europian Union and figure out how to manage things things differently....... Thats a bunch of shit. I choose to live in Westeros, even if it's really fucked up I can still own a sword, the best means of self defence and no one wants to make me a criminal for wanting to have swords and no laws are passed to make sword owners register their family heirlooms. The 2nd Amendment means whats it says. When the 2nd Amendment  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state (not socialism, which turns into communism) (communism manifesto- explains the whole ideaology and its morph from socialism to communism), the right of the people (me and you) to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, the_red_wolf said:

Don't worry, no matter who we elect this year things will get better, we can't go on the current path because it will lead us to the likes of Greece and other socialist nations like them. Even if we elect a socialist they can learn from the past Europian Union and figure out how to manage things things differently.

Good grief. If you think the EU is socialist...well, then your definition of "socialist" is basically "almost everything that walks and talks and exists". The EU is many things, but "socialist" is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, can we either drop the discussion of whether gun manufacturers should be able to be sued, or take it to its own thread, or relate it much more directly to actual election issues? Thanks.

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You'd know better, hereward, but her wiki article states otherwise. Her candidacy in 1979 supposedly killed any semblance of the National front party. She specifically reduced immigration from Asians and stated it was because she wanted to keep Britain british. Any of that untrue?

I'll add my voice to Hereward's here. As someone who (unlike H) despised Thatcher, I still wouldn't support the idea that she ever tried to appeal to NF voters.

What you could perhaps say is that pre-Thatcher, some Tory voters had turned to the National Front as a sort of protest vote. Once Thatcher took charge, they came back to the Tories. However, that's not so much Thatcher stealing NF votes, more the reverse.

To get back to the topic, I do agree, though, that there's no relevant point of comparison with Clinton. I suspect Thatcher would have deeply disliked Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shryke said:

If you wanna say Clinton is hawish, sure, she is. It's the Thatcher comparison that makes no sense.

Perhaps she's hawkish for a democrat, but even then I'm reluctant to give her that label. Compared to McCain, W, Bush I, or even Reagan, she's a peacenik. 

I think it's more accurate to say she's pro-intervention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, alguien said:

Perhaps she's hawkish for a democrat, but even then I'm reluctant to give her that label. Compared to McCain, W, Bush I, or even Reagan, she's a peacenik. 

I think it's more accurate to say she's pro-intervention. 

I mean, I don't think it's possible to have Henry Kissinger constantly laud you and basically endorse you and NOT be a hawk....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton's hawkishness isn't in question. My biggest worry is that she hasn't learned much from her past failures. She was one of the last major Democrats to come around and admitted the Iraq war vote was a mistake, and she was overly eager to advocate for the Obama administration to engage in Libya, Syria, Crimea and Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alguien said:

Perhaps she's hawkish for a democrat, but even then I'm reluctant to give her that label. Compared to McCain, W, Bush I, or even Reagan, she's a peacenik.

No. On this issue, she is of the same kind. The only difference between them are the opportunities they've had -- there was no appetite for another medium-sized war after Iraq so Obama and Clinton had to content themselves with several small ones.

Quote

I think it's more accurate to say she's pro-intervention.

That's a euphemism if ever there was one. The "interventions" she advocated meant annihilating the Libyan government (ultimately resulting in the civil war which is still ongoing) and supplying materiel and training to the Syrian "rebels" (which failed to accomplish anything beyond wasting a great deal of money to indirectly supply the terrorists who promptly seized the materiel).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point in fact, the original comment was that "Hillary" is more like Thatcher than Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's an acknowledgement of how she has painstakenly projected herself as a moderate since 9-11. The insinuation is that she, as an pro interventionist, pro regime change, pro police state Hillary has slid down the slippery slope and has become something that when she started in politics, she would've opposed. To get from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary she became something that many of us aren't confident with and view as more of the same in a long line of pro police state CIC's. Hillary has never met a regime change she couldnt fawn over, she was railing over wanting to throw out Chavez for a while as well. Ignoring that Chavez had been democratically elected multiple times.

As Katrina Vanden Heuval points out in the video, it's unfair to conflate her with Bill because she is her own person, but she goes onto say that we know some of the players and inner circle another Clinton WH will put in place on foreign policy and it's long past time to see some new faces, fresh approach and different ideas put into play on foreign policy in The Nations view. So Hillary may not be Thatcher, she's just more like Thatcher than Hillary Rodham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

I mean, I don't think it's possible to have Henry Kissinger constantly laud you and basically endorse you and NOT be a hawk....

Why not?

She even said she disagrees with the guy on many things in her book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...