|
Philidor
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: 09:32:46, 03-09-2008 » |
|
And of course Sarah Palin's own story in the last little while, which is deeply, deeply spooky whichever version you believe.
Reports now emerging that Bill Clinton is the father of at least two of the Clan Palin.  La Palin, seven months pregnant... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IgnorantRockFan
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 10:08:55, 03-09-2008 » |
|
Both Nixon and Reagan did in fact cause untold suffering and death in the world. If you'd been living in virtually any Central American country in 1980 and you'd viewed the election of Reagan as a disaster of massive proportions you'd have been absolutely right. But then Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia... probably others that I've forgotten about. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is very hard to for me to understand. I'm sure there is a big difference if you live inside America, but purely looking at foreign policy (i.e. the stuff that is most going to affect me) they look the same. And "lesser of two evils" doesn't even enter into it -- it's more like a coin toss between two equal evils. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Allegro, ma non tanto
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 10:21:55, 03-09-2008 » |
|
Both Nixon and Reagan did in fact cause untold suffering and death in the world. If you'd been living in virtually any Central American country in 1980 and you'd viewed the election of Reagan as a disaster of massive proportions you'd have been absolutely right. But then Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia... probably others that I've forgotten about. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is very hard to for me to understand. I'm sure there is a big difference if you live inside America, but purely looking at foreign policy (i.e. the stuff that is most going to affect me) they look the same. And "lesser of two evils" doesn't even enter into it -- it's more like a coin toss between two equal evils. I remember being sickened when, during the 1992 election, Clinton was making a point of ensuring some executions went ahead in Arkansas, knowing this would help his election chances. I'd like to think we're not that brutalised here, at least not quite. But historically many of the Democrat Presidents/Administrations have turned out as bad or worse as those run by the Republicans. Both parties seem in essence to the right of David Cameron or Angela Merkel. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 10:26:00, 03-09-2008 » |
|
it's more like a coin toss between two equal evils. I almost wish that were true (despair being more comfortable than hope in so many ways). But I don't think one could with hindsight fairly describe 2000's Gore v Bush II quite so simply. I know Chomsky did but I'm pretty sure he changed his mind... ...a pity though, since who knows whether that might have helped push George over the line? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 10:28:23, 03-09-2008 » |
|
Nader was a bit different, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 10:31:17, 03-09-2008 » |
|
And "lesser of two evils" doesn't even enter into it -- it's more like a coin toss between two equal evils.
I think the race aspect makes them not quite equal, but apart from that, as I say, Obama wouldn't lift a finger to stop the onward rolling of the military-industrial complex - to do so would involve a fundamental restructuring of the US economy, and you don't get as far as he has in US politics by even having such a thought in your head for half a second, you end up like the heroic and admirable Ralph Nader who isn't going to be allowed within a lightyear of the public "debate", let alone the presidency. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Philidor
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 10:31:35, 03-09-2008 » |
|
TOP thread started here. Thanks for the Counterpunch 'McCain war criminal' link - I've used it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 10:35:42, 03-09-2008 » |
|
Nader was a bit different, perhaps?
Nader's participation is all very heartwarming but given that the system isn't set up to allow the likes of him the ghost of a chance I'm sure the fact that he splits the vote on the so-called left is a source of great joy to the aforementioned military-industrial complex. Ultimately, he's a factor in us having President Bush instead of President Gore. Call me a pragmatist but that's surely not entirely a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 10:36:27, 03-09-2008 » |
|
And "lesser of two evils" doesn't even enter into it -- it's more like a coin toss between two equal evils.
I think the race aspect makes them not quite equal, but apart from that, as I say, Obama wouldn't lift a finger to stop the onward rolling of the military-industrial complex - to do so would involve a fundamental restructuring of the US economy, and you don't get as far as he has in US politics by even having such a thought in your head for half a second, you end up like the heroic and admirable Ralph Nader who isn't going to be allowed within a lightyear of the public "debate", let alone the presidency. ...who heroically and admirably divided the vote in 2000? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 10:39:52, 03-09-2008 » |
|
The USA is supposed to be a democracy in which you vote for the candidate you think would make the best president. Nader may have "split the vote" in 2000 but Gore still won more votes than Bush junior.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 10:44:09, 03-09-2008 » |
|
The USA is supposed to be a democracy in which you vote for the candidate you think would make the best president. Nader may have "split the vote" in 2000 but Gore still won more votes than Bush junior.
That's not a rare situation at all in electoral systems based on electorates - it's happened several times in Australia, sometimes to the benefit of the lesser of the two evils on offer, sometimes alas not. In any case, I think most of us know what it's 'supposed to be' and what it is. Nader and Chomsky are surely two of them and in 2000 they got it very severely wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 10:57:33, 03-09-2008 » |
|
The USA is supposed to be a democracy in which you vote for the candidate you think would make the best president. Nader may have "split the vote" in 2000 but Gore still won more votes than Bush junior.
That's not a rare situation at all in electoral systems based on electorates - it's happened several times in Australia, sometimes to the benefit of the lesser of the two evils on offer, sometimes alas not. The US system is quite different from the Australian though, allowing me to put this a bit more strongly: the American electorate chose Gore for the presidency and the Supreme Court then awarded it to Bush ( qv). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 11:07:14, 03-09-2008 » |
|
The USA is supposed to be a democracy in which you vote for the candidate you think would make the best president. Nader may have "split the vote" in 2000 but Gore still won more votes than Bush junior.
That's not a rare situation at all in electoral systems based on electorates - it's happened several times in Australia, sometimes to the benefit of the lesser of the two evils on offer, sometimes alas not. The US system is quite different from the Australian though, allowing me to put this a bit more strongly: the American electorate chose Gore for the presidency and the Supreme Court then awarded it to Bush ( qv). Indeed. But the perception that there's no difference between the US's far-right political parties is what handed them the tools to do it. Nader, Chomsky and general (entirely understandable) voter apathy did make a difference. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 11:08:42, 03-09-2008 » |
|
The USA is supposed to be a democracy in which you vote for the candidate you think would make the best president. Nader may have "split the vote" in 2000 but Gore still won more votes than Bush junior.
That's not a rare situation at all in electoral systems based on electorates - it's happened several times in Australia, sometimes to the benefit of the lesser of the two evils on offer, sometimes alas not. Also in Britain in the February 1974 elections, where Heath's party won more votes (37.9%) than Wilson's (37.2%), but the electoral system led Labour becoming the largest party in terms of seats (301, whilst the Conservatives had 297) in the Commons. Similarly in 1951, this time to the benefit of Churchill and the Conservatives over Attlee and Labour (Votes/Seats: Conservatives 44.3%, 302; Labour 48.8%, 295). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 11:11:14, 03-09-2008 » |
|
Nader was a bit different, perhaps?
Nader's participation is all very heartwarming but given that the system isn't set up to allow the likes of him the ghost of a chance I'm sure the fact that he splits the vote on the so-called left is a source of great joy to the aforementioned military-industrial complex. Ultimately, he's a factor in us having President Bush instead of President Gore. Call me a pragmatist but that's surely not entirely a good thing. I agree with all of that; I was just saying that Nader is a bit different, politically, to the Republican/Democrat political consensus. Whether he should have stood is another matter. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
