|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Korea (South)227 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:37 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
i was talking about the attribution of chaebol formation or influence to free trade not the fact of their monopoly or behavior, things ive criticised elsewhere frequently
the u.s. is the only one pushing for antitrust at an intl level and the most u.s. influenced trade regime will be the toughest on monopoly worldwide. so yes, america is actually less 'neoliberal' (defined by the stuff leftists attribute to the term) than your average asian mercantilist state. The US will be toughest on monopoly worldwide....are you joking? Because if not, its proof that youre very much uninformed about the current fact of economic life in the country you live in; the US is a monopoly holder in many industries. You live in the Gilded age sir. Open your eyes. ill reference one article because just talking seems to not help you take the step to see reality. http://www.alternet.org/economy/us-economy-increasingly-dominated-monopolies-2015-corporate-mergers-continue unlike you i don't get my international trade law understanding from alternet. let's try again. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/internationalization-antitrust-law-options-future
This was written in 1995. bring something a little more closer to the current year of 2016. Unless youve been cut off from mainstream society since then, A boatload of massive changes have happened since then. The article I linked is just to show tha monoplies are very common, not to show you economic evidence in numbers alone. Any words now?
|
On February 29 2016 01:40 Orlok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 28 2016 21:24 Orlok wrote:
Man, I wish, truly wish, that I could support HRC. However, I just can't believe that she'll pull off anything meaningful in terms of change due to her ever-changing opinions on various hot-potato topics like gay marriage, the consequences of the Iraq War being deemed as a simple "mistake", The beat-downs on the ladies who filed lawsuits against Bill and just so many layers of political mistakes, problems and dishonesty that I guess has become the norm for all politicians, regardless of party.
I would like any HRC follower/supporter to just answer this; do you honestly believe, after looking at her track record so far which from a objective point of view most people would say isn't anything close to progressive and seeking true change, that she WILL bring about the various changes she has proposed? The various scandals and problems she has, such as her massive ties to Wall street show me a person who is a self proclaimed progressive who promises change whilst trying as best as she can to sever any and all attention away from her actual resume, which suggests a neo-liberal supporter (which is a system that is destined to finally stop due to the continued inequality in the countries that push for it) and a very aggressive war-hawk foreign policy(just look at how aggressively she pushed the wrong way in Iraq, Syria and Lybia to name a few) and a typical politician who changes their views because its the opinion of the general populace and not something that they truly believe in? Just look at the definitive view she had against gay marriage all the way back in 08, and with the swathes of LGBT movements and the general shift of view how she also decided to jump on the tide to salvage a career.
Im just a person living in South Korea, so I can't actually vote or do anything meaningful in the polls right now and forever. However, as a person who is notoriously fed up with the KR political system which is basically a copy paste of the US system with a double party rigged election-choose the lesser evil type, I wish to see a Bernie Sanders win send a true message to all countries who currently suffer under the supposed democracy put forth by the corrupt government system and the ruling elites; the actual owners of the country under democracy are the people, and don't you forget it.
I am not going to say that people who vote for Hillary are completely idiotic to make that choice, but just from a logical standpoint I can't see where you are getting the faith to support her from. I have read plenty of books and articles about her and her career, and its plain to me that she is just a typical politican, not necessarily corrupt in the sense like Trump, or morally corrupt, but corrupt in the sense that she cares more for her legacy and gain than the people. Where does that belief come from? If you argue that its for a feminist movement by the way, HRC isn't going to be, with her extremely problematic resume a very good role model as a feminist. It just shows right now that the gender cloud surrounding her makes it easier to get away with terrible deeds. If HRC was a man, without any help from the Clinton legacy she would basically be the O'Mally of today; no chance in hell to win.
Again, I just want to hear a truly logical argument where HRC supporters get their faith from. We vote for a president because we believe they can bring about good change to the current status quo and that they will truly represent OUR best interests. Her record clearly shows she cares a great deal more about her own interest than ours. Please show me some good evidence of WHY its plausible to believe her. Please dont answer this post with swearing and saying im a Bernie Bro or some other demeaning method HRC has put towards Bernie Sanders and their supporters. I just want to know, despite all the facts I have stated above, why people still feel its the LOGICAL decision to vote for her. Please don't say reasons such as I think shes more experienced or things like that; state logical reasons such as she has fought hard consistently on this issue, so she has my respect or something along the lines like that. Rolled out of bed for this... Hillary is very, very progressive. Let's look at the very beginning. She started off at Wesleyan and as student body president organized 2 days of protests after the assassination of MLK. Later, after Yale, she went on to work for the Children's Defense Fund (instead of corporate law), then went undercover in the South to research racial discrimination. This is all prior to even touching politics. Later on as First Lady, she pushed for healthcare reform, got SCHIP passed (insurance for 6M children), pushed for VAWA and women's rights (around the world, including pissing off China) and more. With further regards to foreign policy: you are highlighting her failures and nothing else. As SoS, Hillary worked very, very hard to rehabilitate the US's image abroad after the dumpster fire left by the Bush administration. She negotiated a reduction in nuclear arsenals with Russia. She traveled to many allied nations we'd alienated and held town halls with citizens. She pushed for the close of iotmo from early on, even providing Obama with various potential ways to achieve it. She helped lay the framework for the Iran nuclear agreement. She's the most widely traveled SoS despite only holding the position for 4 years and visited 112 countries. On the issues, let's take LGBT rights as an example. DOMA sucked, and Bill signed it reluctantly. DADT was a compromise that protected basically an inquisition of all LGBT service members. However, the Clinton administration was also the first to fund AIDS research, appoint openly LGBT individuals to positions and participate in a gay rights parade. While SoS, Hillary provided LGBT couples with equal protections and made "gay rights are human rights" a central tenet of US foreign policy. She made a speech to the UN about it, and the released emails showed that she pushed for equal treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa (this was before she publicly came out in support/ flip flopped even). Nice to see all the quotations. Would you like to actually adress my question about her corruption, lies and deceitful politics she has also undergone with the above statements and tell me how the dirt is less heavier of a burden on her honesty and integrity as a candidate who says she will bring much needed change? No HRC supporter gives me logical counter arguments about the integrity of the candidate they support. I just want to hear more about why you trust her with her criminally long political mess resume more than other smaller/bigger names out there.
Contrary to your protests, I'm afraid you might actually be a Bernie bro.
I'm not gonna say that Hillary is a saint, she's a politician. She's certainly done and said some things that I disagree with, but after carefully weighing her virtues and faults I think she's the candidate who most deserves my vote.
I've given some highlights about her record as a progressive which is part of the reason I support her. You're casting vague aspersions; unless you cite specific examples of what you see as corruption, lies and deceit I can't respond and there's no point in attempting to doing so.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:45 Orlok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:43 oneofthem wrote:On February 29 2016 01:37 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
i was talking about the attribution of chaebol formation or influence to free trade not the fact of their monopoly or behavior, things ive criticised elsewhere frequently
the u.s. is the only one pushing for antitrust at an intl level and the most u.s. influenced trade regime will be the toughest on monopoly worldwide. so yes, america is actually less 'neoliberal' (defined by the stuff leftists attribute to the term) than your average asian mercantilist state. The US will be toughest on monopoly worldwide....are you joking? Because if not, its proof that youre very much uninformed about the current fact of economic life in the country you live in; the US is a monopoly holder in many industries. You live in the Gilded age sir. Open your eyes. ill reference one article because just talking seems to not help you take the step to see reality. http://www.alternet.org/economy/us-economy-increasingly-dominated-monopolies-2015-corporate-mergers-continue unlike you i don't get my international trade law understanding from alternet. let's try again. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/internationalization-antitrust-law-options-future This was written in 1995. bring something a little more closer to the current year of 2016.
the uruguay round was basically a failed push to have anti-trust be more relevant in the current gatt regime. hence the designation of TPP and TTIP as quasi-regional frameworks where the u.s. can exercise more influence on the issue, have more anti-trust enforcement.
doha is dead so the wto is basically getting replaced by something else. the choice of this 'something else' is what is at stake in the tpp stuff, not whether to have free trade or not.
|
Korea (South)227 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:40 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 28 2016 21:24 Orlok wrote:
Man, I wish, truly wish, that I could support HRC. However, I just can't believe that she'll pull off anything meaningful in terms of change due to her ever-changing opinions on various hot-potato topics like gay marriage, the consequences of the Iraq War being deemed as a simple "mistake", The beat-downs on the ladies who filed lawsuits against Bill and just so many layers of political mistakes, problems and dishonesty that I guess has become the norm for all politicians, regardless of party.
I would like any HRC follower/supporter to just answer this; do you honestly believe, after looking at her track record so far which from a objective point of view most people would say isn't anything close to progressive and seeking true change, that she WILL bring about the various changes she has proposed? The various scandals and problems she has, such as her massive ties to Wall street show me a person who is a self proclaimed progressive who promises change whilst trying as best as she can to sever any and all attention away from her actual resume, which suggests a neo-liberal supporter (which is a system that is destined to finally stop due to the continued inequality in the countries that push for it) and a very aggressive war-hawk foreign policy(just look at how aggressively she pushed the wrong way in Iraq, Syria and Lybia to name a few) and a typical politician who changes their views because its the opinion of the general populace and not something that they truly believe in? Just look at the definitive view she had against gay marriage all the way back in 08, and with the swathes of LGBT movements and the general shift of view how she also decided to jump on the tide to salvage a career.
Im just a person living in South Korea, so I can't actually vote or do anything meaningful in the polls right now and forever. However, as a person who is notoriously fed up with the KR political system which is basically a copy paste of the US system with a double party rigged election-choose the lesser evil type, I wish to see a Bernie Sanders win send a true message to all countries who currently suffer under the supposed democracy put forth by the corrupt government system and the ruling elites; the actual owners of the country under democracy are the people, and don't you forget it.
I am not going to say that people who vote for Hillary are completely idiotic to make that choice, but just from a logical standpoint I can't see where you are getting the faith to support her from. I have read plenty of books and articles about her and her career, and its plain to me that she is just a typical politican, not necessarily corrupt in the sense like Trump, or morally corrupt, but corrupt in the sense that she cares more for her legacy and gain than the people. Where does that belief come from? If you argue that its for a feminist movement by the way, HRC isn't going to be, with her extremely problematic resume a very good role model as a feminist. It just shows right now that the gender cloud surrounding her makes it easier to get away with terrible deeds. If HRC was a man, without any help from the Clinton legacy she would basically be the O'Mally of today; no chance in hell to win.
Again, I just want to hear a truly logical argument where HRC supporters get their faith from. We vote for a president because we believe they can bring about good change to the current status quo and that they will truly represent OUR best interests. Her record clearly shows she cares a great deal more about her own interest than ours. Please show me some good evidence of WHY its plausible to believe her. Please dont answer this post with swearing and saying im a Bernie Bro or some other demeaning method HRC has put towards Bernie Sanders and their supporters. I just want to know, despite all the facts I have stated above, why people still feel its the LOGICAL decision to vote for her. Please don't say reasons such as I think shes more experienced or things like that; state logical reasons such as she has fought hard consistently on this issue, so she has my respect or something along the lines like that. Rolled out of bed for this... Hillary is very, very progressive. Let's look at the very beginning. She started off at Wesleyan and as student body president organized 2 days of protests after the assassination of MLK. Later, after Yale, she went on to work for the Children's Defense Fund (instead of corporate law), then went undercover in the South to research racial discrimination. This is all prior to even touching politics. Later on as First Lady, she pushed for healthcare reform, got SCHIP passed (insurance for 6M children), pushed for VAWA and women's rights (around the world, including pissing off China) and more. With further regards to foreign policy: you are highlighting her failures and nothing else. As SoS, Hillary worked very, very hard to rehabilitate the US's image abroad after the dumpster fire left by the Bush administration. She negotiated a reduction in nuclear arsenals with Russia. She traveled to many allied nations we'd alienated and held town halls with citizens. She pushed for the close of iotmo from early on, even providing Obama with various potential ways to achieve it. She helped lay the framework for the Iran nuclear agreement. She's the most widely traveled SoS despite only holding the position for 4 years and visited 112 countries. On the issues, let's take LGBT rights as an example. DOMA sucked, and Bill signed it reluctantly. DADT was a compromise that protected basically an inquisition of all LGBT service members. However, the Clinton administration was also the first to fund AIDS research, appoint openly LGBT individuals to positions and participate in a gay rights parade. While SoS, Hillary provided LGBT couples with equal protections and made "gay rights are human rights" a central tenet of US foreign policy. She made a speech to the UN about it, and the released emails showed that she pushed for equal treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa (this was before she publicly came out in support/ flip flopped even). Nice to see all the quotations. Would you like to actually adress my question about her corruption, lies and deceitful politics she has also undergone with the above statements and tell me how the dirt is less heavier of a burden on her honesty and integrity as a candidate who says she will bring much needed change? No HRC supporter gives me logical counter arguments about the integrity of the candidate they support. I just want to hear more about why you trust her with her criminally long political mess resume more than other smaller/bigger names out there. Contrary to your protests, I'm afraid you might actually be a Bernie bro. I'm not gonna say that Hillary is a saint, she's a politician. She's certainly done and said some things that I disagree with, but after carefully weighing her virtues and faults I think she's the candidate who most deserves my vote. I've given some highlights about her record as a progressive which is part of the reason I support her. You're casting vague aspersions; unless you cite specific examples of what you see as corruption, lies and deceit I can't respond and there's no point in attempting to doing so.
Fair enough. Still no words on the myriad of problems and corruption issues she'll face in a projected election with her has the democratic candidate. Shes no saint, thanks for admitting, I guess thats all I really needed to hear. Choosing the lesser of two evils is good enough for people in the DNC I guess.
|
Korea (South)227 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:47 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:45 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:43 oneofthem wrote:On February 29 2016 01:37 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
i was talking about the attribution of chaebol formation or influence to free trade not the fact of their monopoly or behavior, things ive criticised elsewhere frequently
the u.s. is the only one pushing for antitrust at an intl level and the most u.s. influenced trade regime will be the toughest on monopoly worldwide. so yes, america is actually less 'neoliberal' (defined by the stuff leftists attribute to the term) than your average asian mercantilist state. The US will be toughest on monopoly worldwide....are you joking? Because if not, its proof that youre very much uninformed about the current fact of economic life in the country you live in; the US is a monopoly holder in many industries. You live in the Gilded age sir. Open your eyes. ill reference one article because just talking seems to not help you take the step to see reality. http://www.alternet.org/economy/us-economy-increasingly-dominated-monopolies-2015-corporate-mergers-continue unlike you i don't get my international trade law understanding from alternet. let's try again. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/internationalization-antitrust-law-options-future This was written in 1995. bring something a little more closer to the current year of 2016. the uruguay round was basically a failed push to have anti-trust be more relevant in the current gatt regime. hence the designation of TPP and TTIP as quasi-regional frameworks where the u.s. can exercise more influence on the issue, have more anti-trust enforcement. doha is dead so the wto is basically getting replaced by something else. the choice of this 'something else' is what is at stake in the tpp stuff, not whether to have free trade or not.
I think youre pulling off a brilliant lawyers trick; I dont know why youre saying these things when the simple truth is the current economic system in nearly all countries has a bunch of monopolies and small elite groups controlling the wealth flow.
|
On February 28 2016 16:52 zulu_nation8 wrote:
was gonna register next week for my state's primaries on 4/26, but I guess no point now.
You still should bly. That's a really bad point of view to have.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 29 2016 01:51 Orlok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:47 oneofthem wrote:On February 29 2016 01:45 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:43 oneofthem wrote:On February 29 2016 01:37 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
i was talking about the attribution of chaebol formation or influence to free trade not the fact of their monopoly or behavior, things ive criticised elsewhere frequently
the u.s. is the only one pushing for antitrust at an intl level and the most u.s. influenced trade regime will be the toughest on monopoly worldwide. so yes, america is actually less 'neoliberal' (defined by the stuff leftists attribute to the term) than your average asian mercantilist state. The US will be toughest on monopoly worldwide....are you joking? Because if not, its proof that youre very much uninformed about the current fact of economic life in the country you live in; the US is a monopoly holder in many industries. You live in the Gilded age sir. Open your eyes. ill reference one article because just talking seems to not help you take the step to see reality. http://www.alternet.org/economy/us-economy-increasingly-dominated-monopolies-2015-corporate-mergers-continue unlike you i don't get my international trade law understanding from alternet. let's try again. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/internationalization-antitrust-law-options-future This was written in 1995. bring something a little more closer to the current year of 2016. the uruguay round was basically a failed push to have anti-trust be more relevant in the current gatt regime. hence the designation of TPP and TTIP as quasi-regional frameworks where the u.s. can exercise more influence on the issue, have more anti-trust enforcement. doha is dead so the wto is basically getting replaced by something else. the choice of this 'something else' is what is at stake in the tpp stuff, not whether to have free trade or not. I think youre pulling off a brilliant lawyers trick; I dont know why youre saying these things when the simple truth is the current economic system in nearly all countries has a bunch of monopolies and small elite groups controlling the wealth flow.
sure, but the way to change that is to work to reform the trade regime to get more anti-trust and also leverage for governments who cannot do it alone. the 'antitrade' alternative is just wish fulfillment fantasy
btw agricultural subsidies is really utter bullshit, but it is also more of an excuse by states with far more important export protectionist measures to do the blame shift game.
|
On February 29 2016 01:49 Orlok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 29 2016 01:40 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 28 2016 21:24 Orlok wrote:
Man, I wish, truly wish, that I could support HRC. However, I just can't believe that she'll pull off anything meaningful in terms of change due to her ever-changing opinions on various hot-potato topics like gay marriage, the consequences of the Iraq War being deemed as a simple "mistake", The beat-downs on the ladies who filed lawsuits against Bill and just so many layers of political mistakes, problems and dishonesty that I guess has become the norm for all politicians, regardless of party.
I would like any HRC follower/supporter to just answer this; do you honestly believe, after looking at her track record so far which from a objective point of view most people would say isn't anything close to progressive and seeking true change, that she WILL bring about the various changes she has proposed? The various scandals and problems she has, such as her massive ties to Wall street show me a person who is a self proclaimed progressive who promises change whilst trying as best as she can to sever any and all attention away from her actual resume, which suggests a neo-liberal supporter (which is a system that is destined to finally stop due to the continued inequality in the countries that push for it) and a very aggressive war-hawk foreign policy(just look at how aggressively she pushed the wrong way in Iraq, Syria and Lybia to name a few) and a typical politician who changes their views because its the opinion of the general populace and not something that they truly believe in? Just look at the definitive view she had against gay marriage all the way back in 08, and with the swathes of LGBT movements and the general shift of view how she also decided to jump on the tide to salvage a career.
Im just a person living in South Korea, so I can't actually vote or do anything meaningful in the polls right now and forever. However, as a person who is notoriously fed up with the KR political system which is basically a copy paste of the US system with a double party rigged election-choose the lesser evil type, I wish to see a Bernie Sanders win send a true message to all countries who currently suffer under the supposed democracy put forth by the corrupt government system and the ruling elites; the actual owners of the country under democracy are the people, and don't you forget it.
I am not going to say that people who vote for Hillary are completely idiotic to make that choice, but just from a logical standpoint I can't see where you are getting the faith to support her from. I have read plenty of books and articles about her and her career, and its plain to me that she is just a typical politican, not necessarily corrupt in the sense like Trump, or morally corrupt, but corrupt in the sense that she cares more for her legacy and gain than the people. Where does that belief come from? If you argue that its for a feminist movement by the way, HRC isn't going to be, with her extremely problematic resume a very good role model as a feminist. It just shows right now that the gender cloud surrounding her makes it easier to get away with terrible deeds. If HRC was a man, without any help from the Clinton legacy she would basically be the O'Mally of today; no chance in hell to win.
Again, I just want to hear a truly logical argument where HRC supporters get their faith from. We vote for a president because we believe they can bring about good change to the current status quo and that they will truly represent OUR best interests. Her record clearly shows she cares a great deal more about her own interest than ours. Please show me some good evidence of WHY its plausible to believe her. Please dont answer this post with swearing and saying im a Bernie Bro or some other demeaning method HRC has put towards Bernie Sanders and their supporters. I just want to know, despite all the facts I have stated above, why people still feel its the LOGICAL decision to vote for her. Please don't say reasons such as I think shes more experienced or things like that; state logical reasons such as she has fought hard consistently on this issue, so she has my respect or something along the lines like that. Rolled out of bed for this... Hillary is very, very progressive. Let's look at the very beginning. She started off at Wesleyan and as student body president organized 2 days of protests after the assassination of MLK. Later, after Yale, she went on to work for the Children's Defense Fund (instead of corporate law), then went undercover in the South to research racial discrimination. This is all prior to even touching politics. Later on as First Lady, she pushed for healthcare reform, got SCHIP passed (insurance for 6M children), pushed for VAWA and women's rights (around the world, including pissing off China) and more. With further regards to foreign policy: you are highlighting her failures and nothing else. As SoS, Hillary worked very, very hard to rehabilitate the US's image abroad after the dumpster fire left by the Bush administration. She negotiated a reduction in nuclear arsenals with Russia. She traveled to many allied nations we'd alienated and held town halls with citizens. She pushed for the close of iotmo from early on, even providing Obama with various potential ways to achieve it. She helped lay the framework for the Iran nuclear agreement. She's the most widely traveled SoS despite only holding the position for 4 years and visited 112 countries. On the issues, let's take LGBT rights as an example. DOMA sucked, and Bill signed it reluctantly. DADT was a compromise that protected basically an inquisition of all LGBT service members. However, the Clinton administration was also the first to fund AIDS research, appoint openly LGBT individuals to positions and participate in a gay rights parade. While SoS, Hillary provided LGBT couples with equal protections and made "gay rights are human rights" a central tenet of US foreign policy. She made a speech to the UN about it, and the released emails showed that she pushed for equal treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa (this was before she publicly came out in support/ flip flopped even). Nice to see all the quotations. Would you like to actually adress my question about her corruption, lies and deceitful politics she has also undergone with the above statements and tell me how the dirt is less heavier of a burden on her honesty and integrity as a candidate who says she will bring much needed change? No HRC supporter gives me logical counter arguments about the integrity of the candidate they support. I just want to hear more about why you trust her with her criminally long political mess resume more than other smaller/bigger names out there. Contrary to your protests, I'm afraid you might actually be a Bernie bro. I'm not gonna say that Hillary is a saint, she's a politician. She's certainly done and said some things that I disagree with, but after carefully weighing her virtues and faults I think she's the candidate who most deserves my vote. I've given some highlights about her record as a progressive which is part of the reason I support her. You're casting vague aspersions; unless you cite specific examples of what you see as corruption, lies and deceit I can't respond and there's no point in attempting to doing so. Still no words on the myriad of [...] corruption issues she'll face in a projected election with her has the democratic candidate.
Still no words from you. What are those corruption scandals you're talking about?
|
On February 29 2016 01:49 Orlok wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 29 2016 01:40 Orlok wrote:On February 29 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 28 2016 21:24 Orlok wrote:
Man, I wish, truly wish, that I could support HRC. However, I just can't believe that she'll pull off anything meaningful in terms of change due to her ever-changing opinions on various hot-potato topics like gay marriage, the consequences of the Iraq War being deemed as a simple "mistake", The beat-downs on the ladies who filed lawsuits against Bill and just so many layers of political mistakes, problems and dishonesty that I guess has become the norm for all politicians, regardless of party.
I would like any HRC follower/supporter to just answer this; do you honestly believe, after looking at her track record so far which from a objective point of view most people would say isn't anything close to progressive and seeking true change, that she WILL bring about the various changes she has proposed? The various scandals and problems she has, such as her massive ties to Wall street show me a person who is a self proclaimed progressive who promises change whilst trying as best as she can to sever any and all attention away from her actual resume, which suggests a neo-liberal supporter (which is a system that is destined to finally stop due to the continued inequality in the countries that push for it) and a very aggressive war-hawk foreign policy(just look at how aggressively she pushed the wrong way in Iraq, Syria and Lybia to name a few) and a typical politician who changes their views because its the opinion of the general populace and not something that they truly believe in? Just look at the definitive view she had against gay marriage all the way back in 08, and with the swathes of LGBT movements and the general shift of view how she also decided to jump on the tide to salvage a career.
Im just a person living in South Korea, so I can't actually vote or do anything meaningful in the polls right now and forever. However, as a person who is notoriously fed up with the KR political system which is basically a copy paste of the US system with a double party rigged election-choose the lesser evil type, I wish to see a Bernie Sanders win send a true message to all countries who currently suffer under the supposed democracy put forth by the corrupt government system and the ruling elites; the actual owners of the country under democracy are the people, and don't you forget it.
I am not going to say that people who vote for Hillary are completely idiotic to make that choice, but just from a logical standpoint I can't see where you are getting the faith to support her from. I have read plenty of books and articles about her and her career, and its plain to me that she is just a typical politican, not necessarily corrupt in the sense like Trump, or morally corrupt, but corrupt in the sense that she cares more for her legacy and gain than the people. Where does that belief come from? If you argue that its for a feminist movement by the way, HRC isn't going to be, with her extremely problematic resume a very good role model as a feminist. It just shows right now that the gender cloud surrounding her makes it easier to get away with terrible deeds. If HRC was a man, without any help from the Clinton legacy she would basically be the O'Mally of today; no chance in hell to win.
Again, I just want to hear a truly logical argument where HRC supporters get their faith from. We vote for a president because we believe they can bring about good change to the current status quo and that they will truly represent OUR best interests. Her record clearly shows she cares a great deal more about her own interest than ours. Please show me some good evidence of WHY its plausible to believe her. Please dont answer this post with swearing and saying im a Bernie Bro or some other demeaning method HRC has put towards Bernie Sanders and their supporters. I just want to know, despite all the facts I have stated above, why people still feel its the LOGICAL decision to vote for her. Please don't say reasons such as I think shes more experienced or things like that; state logical reasons such as she has fought hard consistently on this issue, so she has my respect or something along the lines like that. Rolled out of bed for this... Hillary is very, very progressive. Let's look at the very beginning. She started off at Wesleyan and as student body president organized 2 days of protests after the assassination of MLK. Later, after Yale, she went on to work for the Children's Defense Fund (instead of corporate law), then went undercover in the South to research racial discrimination. This is all prior to even touching politics. Later on as First Lady, she pushed for healthcare reform, got SCHIP passed (insurance for 6M children), pushed for VAWA and women's rights (around the world, including pissing off China) and more. With further regards to foreign policy: you are highlighting her failures and nothing else. As SoS, Hillary worked very, very hard to rehabilitate the US's image abroad after the dumpster fire left by the Bush administration. She negotiated a reduction in nuclear arsenals with Russia. She traveled to many allied nations we'd alienated and held town halls with citizens. She pushed for the close of iotmo from early on, even providing Obama with various potential ways to achieve it. She helped lay the framework for the Iran nuclear agreement. She's the most widely traveled SoS despite only holding the position for 4 years and visited 112 countries. On the issues, let's take LGBT rights as an example. DOMA sucked, and Bill signed it reluctantly. DADT was a compromise that protected basically an inquisition of all LGBT service members. However, the Clinton administration was also the first to fund AIDS research, appoint openly LGBT individuals to positions and participate in a gay rights parade. While SoS, Hillary provided LGBT couples with equal protections and made "gay rights are human rights" a central tenet of US foreign policy. She made a speech to the UN about it, and the released emails showed that she pushed for equal treatment of LGBT individuals in Africa (this was before she publicly came out in support/ flip flopped even). Nice to see all the quotations. Would you like to actually adress my question about her corruption, lies and deceitful politics she has also undergone with the above statements and tell me how the dirt is less heavier of a burden on her honesty and integrity as a candidate who says she will bring much needed change? No HRC supporter gives me logical counter arguments about the integrity of the candidate they support. I just want to hear more about why you trust her with her criminally long political mess resume more than other smaller/bigger names out there. Contrary to your protests, I'm afraid you might actually be a Bernie bro. I'm not gonna say that Hillary is a saint, she's a politician. She's certainly done and said some things that I disagree with, but after carefully weighing her virtues and faults I think she's the candidate who most deserves my vote. I've given some highlights about her record as a progressive which is part of the reason I support her. You're casting vague aspersions; unless you cite specific examples of what you see as corruption, lies and deceit I can't respond and there's no point in attempting to doing so. Fair enough. Still no words on the myriad of problems and corruption issues she'll face in a projected election with her has the democratic candidate. Shes no saint, thanks for admitting, I guess thats all I really needed to hear. Choosing the lesser of two evils is good enough for people in the DNC I guess.
It seems a lot of people think Hillary supporters picked her because she's the "lesser of two evils". I cant speak for everyone, but I support Hillary because she would make the best president out of anyone running this year. There are very principled candidates each year (Sanders was not the first), like Jill Stein who I adore, but have no chance of getting elected and have abysmal amounts of experience. They have spotless records, but those records are awful thin as well.
If you focus on the bad parts of someone's record (after 20 years of intense scrutiny there have been plenty), then obviously they will look bad. But when at least I compare Hillary's mistakes and shortcomings in context to all the good she's ushered in during her career in public service then I see someone with the character, experience and tenacity to be president.
|
On February 29 2016 00:40 oneofthem wrote:on the korean chaebols it would be precisely wrong to say they were product of free trade. more like creation of state privilege and their influence has been towards more protectionism in korea. see https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal102/10-2_09 Korea-Powers.pdffor a history the left seems to use neoliberalism as a catchall phrase for the happenings to global economic structure while attributing these events to a simple idea. this is far from qccurate would expand if i have more time
The relevant criticism of GATT is thst the US doesn't practice free trade itself. Free trade is for the other Americas and Pacific:
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 29 2016 02:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 00:40 oneofthem wrote:on the korean chaebols it would be precisely wrong to say they were product of free trade. more like creation of state privilege and their influence has been towards more protectionism in korea. see https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal102/10-2_09 Korea-Powers.pdffor a history the left seems to use neoliberalism as a catchall phrase for the happenings to global economic structure while attributing these events to a simple idea. this is far from qccurate would expand if i have more time The relevant criticism of GATT is thst the US doesn't practice free trade itself. Free trade is for the other Americas and Pacific:
the u.s. is the most open and important consumer market. without the u.s. opening its own market there would be no free trade, period.
|
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now?
Is there something else "experience" entails that I am missing?
|
the purveyor of world currency has the luxury of having open "consumer" markets doesnt it? and gatt and its progeny exist so that its investor class has access to any productive markets it needs to realize return here or elsewhere.
seems like you are using a narrow definition of "free trade" to make arguments here. lets abolish IP protections and see what happens. the Us is effectively operating a "global" US regime wherein other countries have to play by the US rules with regard to IP, capital restrictions, financing regulations, and the rest but don't have the privileges accorded to a US state, operating as resource centers and cheap labor for the home market.
|
On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now?
No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism.
Experience also entails familiarity with executive decision-making at the federal level, including how to delegate or concentrate authority, how to organize advisers and the decision-making process itself, and the capacity to deal with, and overcome, bureaucratic resistance.
|
On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now?
Is there something else "experience" entails that I am missing?
In my experience (as it were), when people like a candidate, they'll say he's an outsider, not part of the establishment, he has a fresh perspective, isn't owned by special interests, and so forth. And when they dislike a candidate, he's unqualified, doesn't know what he's doing, isn't reliable, or what have you.
|
Out of Hillary, Bernie, Rubio and Trump the only one you can paint as inexperienced is Trump, the rest are all been in politics for over a decade.
All Trump has is business experience and the government is not a business.
|
On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism.
Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation?
Experience also entails familiarity with executive decision-making at the federal level, including how to delegate or concentrate authority, how to organize advisers and the decision-making process itself,
I mean, to be real - isn't this pretty abstract stuff? I mean you can find tons of non-politicians who can do things like organize people and delegate authority.
And sure, knowing the "rules and laws" is useful, but then I keep being told by people that Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie because she would know these rules and laws, and then at the same time they defend her not knowing something as basic as that she shouldn't use a private server for her emails.
and the capacity to deal with, and overcome, bureaucratic resistance.
Again, I think this concept is part of the problem. It seems to me that, currently, the system is incredibly corrupt. Everything is about pandering to the groups that provide the $$, because that's how you get continued support. Why would we want someone who will continue to play into this system?
If our politicians aren't doing their jobs, isn't it the job of the citizens to stop electing them more than it is the job of the president to perpetually make bargains with them?
|
On February 29 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:
Out of Hillary, Bernie, Rubio and Trump the only one you can paint as inexperienced is Trump, the rest are all been in politics for over a decade.
All Trump has is business experience and the government is not a business.
They claim a CEO can be president due to the skills acquired running a business. But if you ask of a politician can run a business, apparently none of the skills transfer. As least plumbers and electricians know they can't do each others jobs.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 29 2016 02:19 IgnE wrote:
the purveyor of world currency has the luxury of having open "consumer" markets doesnt it? and gatt and its progeny exist so that its investor class has access to any productive markets it needs to realize return here or elsewhere.
seems like you are using a narrow definition of "free trade" to make arguments here. lets abolish IP protections and see what happens. the Us is effectively operating a "global" US regime wherein other countries have to play by the US rules with regard to IP, capital restrictions, financing regulations, and the rest but don't have the privileges accorded to a US state, operating as resource centers and cheap labor for the home market.
not sure why you'd see ip as the problem. part of development of higher value production is ip protection. middle income trap countries would do well to have more ip protection
currency war stuff would just give other currencies the advantage.
free trade as labor arbitrage by u.s. firms is the only thing i see as a legit argument here and it is indeed a serious if not fundamental problem but this is basically inevitable anyway given the economy of scale involved. allowing global scale economic organixation leads to a lot of inequality but it is overall more efficient. you would want the redistribution and taxation to keep up along with human development of those left behind.
|
Hillary has gotten a lot of things on the progressive agenda done even with the constraints she's been put under. That record is how I define her experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
