Dubstepforum.com

Jurkhands wrote:american classification of their political parties is beyond me.
Liberals aren't liberal (nor are they socialist by any stretch), republicans aren't republican, yet they still feel the need to advertise their battles as a clash of cultures.

smh

bipolar (two-party) systems are the worst.

You mean democrats right? Either way its all propaganda to make you forget each parties pasts. Like how republicans were pro-emancipation and democrats were pro-slavery

Jurkhands wrote:american classification of their political parties is beyond me.
Liberals aren't liberal (nor are they socialist by any stretch), republicans aren't republican, yet they still feel the need to advertise their battles as a clash of cultures.

smh

bipolar (two-party) systems are the worst.

dems are social liberals at best, but most are third way centrist. Both parties support the expansion of corporate capitalism, so either way the middle and lower classes get fucked.

thats why im afraid of hillary, shes good on one hand because she's a very likely win for the dems and will certainly be better than any running, but she's also terribly corporatist

neehawg

Phigure wrote:thats why im afraid of hillary, shes good on one hand because she's a very likely win for the dems and will certainly be better than any running, but she's also terribly corporatist

Barry Sanders 2016

Phigure wrote:thats why im afraid of hillary, shes good on one hand because she's a very likely win for the dems and will certainly be better than any running, but she's also terribly corporatist

She's a pro-imperialist, anti civil liberties, pro-NSA warmonger. There will be no major candidate better than Rand Paul, despite his faults, in 2016. Not a single one. His efforts to end the war on drugs, legalise marijuana, restore voting rights to convicted fellons (many of whom are black and sentenced over the war on drugs), and his anti-drone activism have been better than any other major figure likely to run in 2016.

Right-wing Republican hawks are already advising people to vote for Hillary if Rand Paul were to run in 2016. And you really think she'd be "the best one running?" Both her and McCain receive funs from the same neo-conservative think tanks. She's no different from her husband who should've been impeached for bombing Afghanistan, Iraq (for 4 days, which killed countless of civilians, during a military embargo innitiated by the Clinton administration that killed half a million Iraqi children) and a medicine factory in Sudan.

m8son wrote:

I think I agree with what you are posing there Gen, but

She's no different from her husband

that is highly arguable when it is a sort of game afterall and only being in the seat will tell the real story/show what direction.

hubb wrote:I think I agree with what you are posing there Gen, but

She's no different from her husband

that is highly arguable when it is a sort of game afterall and only being in the seat will tell the real story/show what direction.

She has a track record as a senator and Secretary of State.

m8son wrote:

I think it's time to mock people that have to use proper or good gear to produce

the only smooth way to run the US tbf.

Genevieve wrote:

hubb wrote:I think I agree with what you are posing there Gen, but

She's no different from her husband

that is highly arguable when it is a sort of game afterall and only being in the seat will tell the real story/show what direction.

She has a track record as a senator and Secretary of State.

I'm saying I think you are right, but it's still somewhat of a sensory judgement.

hubb wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

hubb wrote:I think I agree with what you are posing there Gen, but

She's no different from her husband

that is highly arguable when it is a sort of game afterall and only being in the seat will tell the real story/show what direction.

She has a track record as a senator and Secretary of State.

I'm saying I think you are right, but it's still somewhat of a sensory judgement.

You could say that about any politician. Who knows, maybe if Santorum took seat rather than Obama, he would've kickstarted another socialist revolution, right? Hillary has been active enough in politicis to show where she stands on issues, including foreign policy. Such as supporting the Iraq war (until it became fashionable for Democrats not to). That she's cut from the same cloth as her neo-conservative husband is obvious from the policies that she is vocally supporting now and has in the past.

gene you're a strong libertarian right? would you also be behind anarchism then

RKM wrote:gene you're a strong libertarian right? would you also be behind anarchism then

Depends on how you define anarchism.

If anarchism = no rulers, then no. I believe people should be able to pick their own rulers, just not force them on others. Though I would not choose a ruler personally.

If anarchism = statelesness, then yeah you could call me an anarchist (or anarcho-capitalist). But the philosophical foundation I work from (the non-aggression principle rather than anti-authoritarianism) makes me different from what's traditionally an "anarchist", even though I oppose the existence of the state.

Such as supporting the Iraq war (until it became fashionable for Democrats not to). That she's cut from the same cloth as her neo-conservative husband is obvious from the policies that she is vocally supporting now and has in the past.

That very occasion is key to defining what democrats have become, sure. But you're neglecting the changes of 911 which is silly. It's a completely different office now and foreign policy is going to differ drastically but still define America as it always has. In that situation I'm sure you are right, that there's very key principles that will get the same sort of financing, same level of guantanamo justice an whatnot as reps, but it doesn't account for how the receptance of her will be internationally and even nationally.

The fact that for example Merkel is a woman and that it has an effect is impossible to discount imo. Republicans couldn't get a woman elected imo.

hubb wrote:That very occasion is key to defining what democrats have become, sure. But you're neglecting the changes of 911 which is silly. It's a completely different office now and foreign policy is going to differ drastically but still define America as it always has.

No. America has been doing the same thing pre-9/11 that it is doing now. You are wrong. 9/11 changed domestic policy more than foreign policy. 9/11 was the result of American imperialism, which resulted in what the CIA calls blowback; American meddling in the middle east creates enemies in the Middle East that will then retaliate in terrorrist attacks. She is a vocal proponent of this type of meddling that has been going on since before 9/11. The same type of meddling that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqi children.

hubb wrote:In that situation I'm sure you are right, that there's very key principles that will get the same sort of financing, same level of guantanamo justice an whatnot as reps, but it doesn't account for how the receptance of her will be internationally and even nationally.

You are defending her because she's a Democrat and you would not have batted an eye when I said that Jeb Bush would be no different from his brother and father; because the evidence is there.

hubb wrote:The fact that for example Merkel is a woman and that it has an effect is impossible to discount imo. Republicans couldn't get a woman elected imo.

Female Republicans win elections all the time. This is unnecessary mudslinging based on party affilitation.

I'm not defending her at all and you are putting words in my mouth.

Enough.

that wasnt an anti-hubb bigup that was an 'i agree with u about hilary' bigup