Support NeoGAF

[kame-sennin]

The quote was stupid at best and downright offensive at worst. You seem willing to give it a free pass as "meaningless pandering", but then in the same breath accused the poster who quoted it of being the sexist. If you weren't being flippant, and actually were serious, then you come off as a petty hypocrite.

I think we might be arguing about two different things here, so I'm going to back it up for a second. Here's what I originally said:

"As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I would enjoy seeing her elected just because it would infuriate misogynists like you."

I add emphasis to the last bit because that was the thrust of my point. I found what SexConker posted to be sexist, so I decided to call him out on it. I also feel that many (but not all) Hillary haters harbor similar sexist notions. The Clinton quote in his post did not really enter into my argument until you asked me whether or not SexConker's post was valid. My opinion is that the quote is silly, but not much more. It's certainly not a justification for sexist fear mongering. I imagine you feel I'm a hypocrite because you believe that Hillary's statement was also sexist. I personally don't view it that way, so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Kitschkraft]

Excuse me for the late edit, I left the keyboard for a moment.

I see no need in explaining myself, it's a matter of principle to me. Yes, it's happened in the past...and I wouldn't have voted for those people either (Bush being the son of a former president was one of my biggest gripes for him back in 2000).

I just can't stand seeing out upper wealthy class just getting away with this shit, as though we have some strange monarchy or something, or as though power is meant to be inherited and not earned, it sickens me.

 

[Cheebs]

I don't support Billary because there will be two people pulling the President's job (regardless of what they may say), and it's completely against what the Founding Fathers argued against at the end. Even now, GWB is basically running to country with Chaney, and what a mess it has been!

"Two for the price of one" = Really bad idea.

Clinton used the two for the price of one argument in '92 and it wasn't the failure you make it out to be when it happens again (or rather if it happens again).

 

[Cheebs]

I just can't stand seeing out upper wealthy class just getting away with this shit, as though we have some strange monarchy or something, or as though power is meant to be inherited and not earned, it sickens me.

So she isn't earning it? So her playing very dirty and campaigning nonstop as is her husband isnt trying to earn it? They are playing the game fucking hard right now, and that is the problem many have. They are doing EVERYTHING to win. They aren't inheriting it, they are being forced by the threat of Obama to throw everything but the kitchen sink in this.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I didn't know someones family made them unable to run for office, isnt that discrimination?

I never said that she shouldn't be allowed to run.....simply said that I wouldn't vote for her.

 

[Piper Az]

Clinton used the two for the price of one argument in '92 and it wasn't the failure you make it out to be when it happens again (or rather if it happens again).

It wasn't a downright failure since Hillary wasn't really doing much. The two things she did try to do were absolutely disastrous, however - healthcare (what a mess) and fund raising (scadals). Now, with Billary you really are going to get two active politicians tyring to run the White House. And it will be dysfunctional and also evade any singular accountability. I'm not looking for a tag-team Presidency.

 

[Cheebs]

I never said that she shouldn't be allowed to run.....simply said that I wouldn't vote for her.

You also point blank called it dictatorship. When it is the exact opposite.

 

[kame-sennin]

1. We have had two father son combos. We have also had a combo of cousins. And nearly had a brother combo till Bobby Kennedy was killed during campaigning. America survived all of that pretty well.
2. What the fuck does North Korea have to do with who the american people VOTE for? North Korea has had a presidents wife run for office? If not then there is no way I can see the comparison.
3. A dictatorship is a system where the American people choose their nominees by voting and then choose which of the nominees should be president by VOTING? I thought GAF's problem was the population is stupid for voting Hillary, not that hillary is forcing them to vote for her by force.

While I wouldn't rule out a candidate because of familial ties, there is cause for concern here. Addressing your latter two points:

2) North Korea has had a father and son rule the country for the last ~half century(?). Having multiple members of the same family governing a country can lead to a dangerous consolidation of power, even if it hasn't in the past.

3) But our choice of candidates is extremely limited. Only candidates who can raise large sums of money have a chance of running a national campaign. And even then, they still have to be considered "viable" by the media in order to receive equal attention and exposure. Then, add things like Super Delegates which allow the party establishment to swing a close election or laws blocking third party candidates and you can see how limited the control held by the public actually is. What's even more concerning is that the three groups named above: campaign contributors, the media, and the democrat (and republican) party leadership are all funded by the same corporations, further consolidating power in even fewer hands. Finally, while we don't live in a dictatorship, having the right to vote is not a disqualifier for that type of government.

 

[Kitschkraft]

You also point blank called it dictatorship. When it is the exact opposite.

I was obviously drawing a parallel between ruling families, but if you honestly think that I believe the Clintons to be full fledged dictators, you're wrong. I made this more clear in my edit (Which I admitted, came late, but was more clear regardless).

Either way, I never implied anywhere that she should be disallowed to run.

 

[Atrus]

No, he just helped their arming and training, helped give them the justification to go against "empires" who use other countries as pawns in order to shore-up their global dominance, and argued in favor of all the policies that caused them to hate us. But hey, if we supported Saddam at least we'd have a modern, Western-friendly and unstable dictator on our "side," which totally wouldn't have done anything to promote terrorism and regional instability. Of course, we haven't seen the consequences of that hypothetical, and therefore can't argue it would have lead to a better situation.

Brzezinski's strategy called on avoiding US casualties by creating a situation where the Soviets would bog themselves down attacking another party. After that, the Muslim countries would be a bulkwark to stop Soviet expansion into Eurasia. The same with Iraq against Iran.

Of course the entire strategy hinged on the US not becoming a militaristic presence in the area. This all ended in the Bush Senior administration obviously.

Brzezinski also held that the Soviet Union was a greater threat than Jihadi's, since they were very much like Christians and tended to fall amongst themselves. Given what we know about them now, this is very much true. Though I don't agree with strategically shitting up the rest of the world so that America remains number 1 any more than I agree with moronically shitting up the world for private interests.

In Second Chance he outlines how Bush 1 fucked things up, Clinton perpetuated it, and Bush 2 almost doomed the US. Whoever is elected in 2008 represents the 2nd chance for America to reverse direction and get the hell out before it's too late, hence the title of the book. Somehow I doubt Clinton 2 is going to go in the right direction when Clinton 1 did not.

 

[Kitschkraft]

While I wouldn't rule out a candidate because of familial ties, there is cause for concern here. Addressing your latter two points:

2) North Korea has had a father and son rule the country for the last ~half century(?). Having multiple members of the same family governing a country can lead to a dangerous consolidation of power, even if it hasn't in the past.

3) But our choice of candidates is extremely limited. Only candidates who can raise large sums of money have a chance of running a national campaign. And even then, they still have to be considered "viable" by the media in order to receive equal attention and exposure. Then, add things like Super Delegates which allow the party establishment to swing a close election or laws blocking third party candidates and you can see how limited the control held by the public actually is. What's even more concerning is that the three groups named above: campaign contributors, the media, and the democrat (and republican) party leadership are all funded by the same corporations, further consolidating power in even fewer hands. Finally, while we don't live in a dictatorship, having the right to vote is not a disqualifier for that type of government.

He is saying what I want to say more adequately then I can.

I just don't want these same people running things, regardless of all else, I just don't like it, and I really don't think that needs much explanation.

Reagan was president for 8 years, in which GHW Bush was his vice president for those eight years. After Reagan, GHW took the helm for 4 years, until he was beaten out by Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton ruled for two terms, or 8 years. Then, he gets succeeded by none other then GW, who just happened to be the son of a man who was in the whitehouse for 12 years, just 8 years before hand. GW is now ending his second term, and the democratic party looks to....Hillary Clinton, whose husband ruled for 8 years, 8 years ago.

To me, the whole situation just stinks of shit. I feel suffocated by these people, it's like the illuminati is just fucking with us at this point (And no Cheebs, I don't believe in the illuminati, I'm just being sarcastic).

 

[kame-sennin]

I just don't want these same people running things, regardless of all else, I just don't like it, and I really don't think that needs much explanation.

I think it's a dictatorship of ideas. I'm not saying that democracy is dead or that fascism is coming. There's no conspiracies here. It's just that all American power is consolidated around a specific group our caste of people. We still have freedom and democracy because anyone can rise to join this caste regardless of their background (Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, ect.), but once you're in, you've got to play ball. You must maintain the status quo which tends to support aggressive foreign policy and a pro-corporate agenda. People who won't play ball don't have a chance. They don't get the money or the press and it's almost impossible for them to get the votes (again, super delegates, wtf?).

 

[Cheebs]

And when (its not a matter of if) the turnout on the democratic side is HIGHER this fall if hillary is the nominee than it was in 2004 how does back up your argument? Even if she loses I say its very fair to say she'll get more votes than Gore and Kerry (who got more votes than Gore) did.

 

[kame-sennin]

And when (its not a matter of if) the turnout on the democratic side is HIGHER this fall if hillary is the nominee than it was in 2004 how does back up your argument? Even if she loses I say its very fair to say she'll get more votes than Gore and Kerry (who got more votes than Gore) did.

You can't have a "high" turnout in a country where only half the eligible population votes.

Edit: But to be more specific, I would argue that Kerry and Gore are easily part of the same ruling caste the Hillary and Bush belong to. The added interest in this campaign is mostly due to more exciting campaign dynamics (race/sex) and political unrest.

I have no idea how to turn the tide of this plutocracy, but further consolidating power in one family is probably not the answer.

 

[Piper Az]

“I think everyone who knows Bill knows that he’s both a great student of politics and history, but he’s also somebody who brought our country together,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters in Memphis.

What the...Pardon me??? :lol

 

[Cheebs]

What the...Pardon me??? :lol

70%+ approval rating means you are doing a pretty good job bringing the people together.

 

[Piper Az]

70%+ approval rating means you are doing a pretty good job bringing the people together.

Yeah sure. Those Clinton years were so full of bipartisanship. :lol

 

[scorcho]

It's all about the delegates! (mo-men-tum?)

The presidential campaign is entering a new phase as Democratic and Republican candidates move beyond state-by-state competition and into a potentially protracted scramble for delegates Congressional district by Congressional district.

The shifting terrain is influencing the strategies of candidates from both parties — though decidedly more so for Democrats — as they move from early state contests to the coast-to-coast contests on Feb. 5, when 41 percent of Republican delegates and 52 percent of Democratic delegates will be chosen.

It is the first time in over 20 years in which the campaign has turned into a possibly lengthy hunt for delegates, rather than an effort to roll up a string of big-state victories.

This development reflects the competitive races in both parties, with neither a Republican nor a Democrat yet able to claim front-runner status. It has forced the campaigns to master complex delegate-allocation rules as they make a series of critical decisions about how best to allocate campaign resources to produce the greatest return of delegates.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Obama is the lesser of two evils. With him in office, foreign policy will be the same (Obama wants to send troops into Pakistan), the government's role in the economy will largely be the same, he won't change things like the war on drugs or gay marriage, etc. He gives a good speech but what kind of substantive change is he really going to bring? The real change candidates are Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, even though they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum they're both honest and not corrupt.

Edit: I think i posted this already but i think it's a good point.

 

[Mandark]

That story sums up why any WTA system distorts the election, whether it's on the state level like the electoral college, or smaller areas. However you carve up the map, swing states/counties/Congressional districts will get disproportional attention.

National primary! Preferential voting! Publicly financed campaigns!

Which will never happen because you'd need some massive crisis to overcome the institutional inertia, but I can still kvetch about it.

 

[scorcho]

Obama doesn't want to send troops into Pakistan a la Afghanistan or Iraq - he only presented a very specific situation in which he would overrule Pakistan's sovereignty to target an important NSA. that is it.

as to the 'war on drugs', what are you talking about? that reagan-era throwback hasn't been seen since sometime in the early 90s.

 

[scorcho]

That story sums up why any WTA system distorts the election, whether it's on the state level like the electoral college, or smaller areas. However you carve up the map, swing states/counties/Congressional districts will get disproportional attention.

National primary! Preferential voting! Publicly financed campaigns!

Which will never happen because you'd need some massive crisis to overcome the institutional inertia, but I can still kvetch about it.

proportional representation > WTA (except if you're an African nation coming out of an intra-state war with deep economic and thus political ties to the US, then you have no choice)

 

[kame-sennin]

Obama is the lesser of two evils. With him in office, foreign policy will be the same (Obama wants to send troops into Pakistan), the government's role in the economy will largely be the same, he won't change things like the war on drugs or gay marriage, etc. He gives a good speech but what kind of substantive change is he really going to bring? The real change candidates are Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, even though they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum they're both honest and not corrupt.

Edit: I think i posted this already but i think it's a good point.

It is. Well said.

Edit, I'm going to have to QFT this as well:

That story sums up why any WTA system distorts the election, whether it's on the state level like the electoral college, or smaller areas. However you carve up the map, swing states/counties/Congressional districts will get disproportional attention.

National primary! Preferential voting! Publicly financed campaigns!

Which will never happen because you'd need some massive crisis to overcome the institutional inertia, but I can still kvetch about it.

 

[kame-sennin]

as to the 'war on drugs', what are you talking about? that reagan-era throwback hasn't been seen since sometime in the early 90s.

Tell that to all the people sitting in jail who were convicted under the Rockefeller drug laws (NY).

 

[scorcho]

Tell that to all the people sitting in jail who were convicted under the Rockefeller drug laws (NY).

Rockefeller laws are exclusive to NYS alone, and it's the fault of the mind-numbing inertia of Albany Politics for not reforming it sooner.

 

[Mandark]

Drug laws in general are bad, I think (though I really don't keep up with it myself). It also seems to be an area like Cuba policy where the majority opinion of the actual experts gets steamrolled by the political reality.

So you're not going to see a Democratic candidate make a major public case for a new approach to drug policy, but I think it's a lot more likely that a Democratic president would quietly support (or at least not impede) stuff like this.


PS scorcho: I just have a personal peeve about people presenting WTA systems based on smaller districts as being the same as proportional systems. They're not! You'd just be slicing it thinner! Argh.

 

[kame-sennin]

Rockefeller laws are exclusive to NYS alone, and it's the fault of the mind-numbing inertia of Albany Politics for not reforming it sooner.

I know that, which is why I put "NY" in parenthesis. However, drug laws across the country are horrible. The very idea that people can be imprisoned for an addiction is ridiculous. The point of my original post is that, while the "war on drugs" no longer grabs headlines, it is still being waged and there are hundreds of victims claimed every year.