Iowa Caucus - 2008

[dilute micro]

She is colorless and a tough campaigner, I think she would be formidable in a general election.

I don't know what you mean by colorless but she is in my opinion the most intelligent politician in the whole race. She doesn't say much because she knows better than to tell her plans. She just can't come across naturally as a personable person. To be that intelligent only to have this sort of bitch-bomb waiting to explode aura around her is funny.



Oh and she's nasty.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I doubt Huckabee can win the general election. The Republicans usually draw heavily on the Hispanic vote, and his primary platform issue is securing America's border from crazy deranged Mexicans ( ). He might get the evangelical vote, but the Hispanic community is at least a quarter, projected to be 50% in the not-so-distant future.

I get the idea that all the Republican candidates are strongly in favour of shooting Mexicans (except maybe McCain, because he's from Arizona or someplace like that and knows that his lawn will turn brown if he doesn't have some Mexicans to water it for him).

The whole 'shooting Mexicans' thing seems to be the common rallying issue for the Republicans now that everybody is bored with gay marriage. As far as I can make out, what really distinguishes Huckabee from the other crooks and liars is that he also wants to shoot abortion doctors for Jeebus and doesn't care who knows it.

 

[Idris2002]

Seriously though, why does Hilary Clinton inspire such visceral loathing among the right wing?

She's barely centrist as far as I can see, and certainly not left or 'liberal'.

 

[zoltan]

She's barely centrist as far as I can see, and certainly not left or 'liberal'.

Its all comparative rather than absolute I think

if you rememebr back to the health reforsm she tried to steamroller thro' the houses when she was the Presidents wife - she put alot of peoples noses out of joint as she seemed to actually know what she was talking about and could argue her position.

and shes a woman.

Im sure the party of Strim Thurmond is a bit wary of women who dont know their place

 

[mears]

I don't know what you mean by colorless but she is in my opinion the most intelligent politician in the whole race. She doesn't say much because she knows better than to tell her plans. She just can't come across naturally as a personable person. To be that intelligent only to have this sort of bitch-bomb waiting to explode aura around her is funny.



Oh and she's nasty.

If George Bush was George Walker, first term govenour from Texas, he would never have been elected President in 2000. If Hillary Clinton was Hillary Rodhman, junior Senator from NY, she would not be in her current position.

Hillary owes her political standing to her husband, one of the best politicians in the last 100 years.

 

[mears]

I get the idea that all the Republican candidates are strongly in favour of shooting Mexicans (except maybe McCain, because he's from Arizona or someplace like that and knows that his lawn will turn brown if he doesn't have some Mexicans to water it for him).

The whole 'shooting Mexicans' thing seems to be the common rallying issue for the Republicans now that everybody is bored with gay marriage. As far as I can make out, what really distinguishes Huckabee from the other crooks and liars is that he also wants to shoot abortion doctors for Jeebus and doesn't care who knows it.

Either you are making things up or are just completly ignorant. Try to educate yourself if you participate, otherwise you look like a fool.

You are to old to act like that.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Truth hurts eh mears?

 

[newharper]

I was reading this democrat poster on another site, an Edwards supporter presumably, who claimed that most of the republicans deserted their caucus, leaving the show to the Huckerbee wingnuts becuase they know he won't be the candidate. He claimed they all voted for Obama, as they are allowed to do in Iowa, as a spoiler against Edwards, who is the one they fear come november!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Huckabee thing is interesting though, as a further development of the weird relationship money-oriented Republicans (like mears) have with the snake-handling, abortion-doctor-shooting, god-bothering sorts of Republican. The latter have been an absolutely crucial part of the Republican electoral base since the Reagan era, but they've never entirely got what they wanted from either Reagan or GW. Just a bit of a circus now and then like the Terry Schiavo business to keep the flecks of spittle flying nicely while they get taken for a ride by the money guys.

One might hope that the religious loons are getting all worked up and frothing at the mouth about Huckabee's result and are excitedly envisaging the public stoning of gays and generally turning the US into a Baptist version of Iran or Saudi, and are going to feel all angry and betrayed when the GOP leadership scrags Huckabee so that some principle-free corporate drone that the money guys can trust, most probably Romney, becomes the official candidate.

 

[mears]

The Huckabee thing is interesting though, as a further development of the weird relationship money-oriented Republicans (like mears) have with the snake-handling, abortion-doctor-shooting, god-bothering sorts of Republican. The latter have been an absolutely crucial part of the Republican electoral base since the Reagan era, but they've never entirely got what they wanted from either Reagan or GW. Just a bit of a circus now and then like the Terry Schiavo business to keep the flecks of spittle flying nicely while they get taken for a ride by the money guys.

One might hope that the religious loons are getting all worked up and frothing at the mouth about Huckabee's result and are excitedly envisaging the public stoning of gays and generally turning the US into a Baptist version of Iran or Saudi, and are going to feel all angry and betrayed when the GOP leadership scrags Huckabee so that some principle-free corporate drone that the money guys can trust, most probably Romney, becomes the official candidate.

Do you really think american evangelicals support the stoning of gay people? I am sure you have held discussions with countless people of such persuasion.

Now Huckabee does point out that money is not the end all in the democratic process, I beleive Romney out spent the guy 15 to 1 in Iowa. Plus you have to kind of like somone who lost one hundred pounds, wrote a diet book and plays bass guitar. These are actual people, not some loon brought out in front of the camera, your dehumanizing language aside.

I won't support Huckabee because he is a protectionist who is way behind in foreign affairs. Also his plan to scrap the IRS and establish a national sales tax is stupid.

It astounds me how politically dumb the elite of the democratic party remain, those behind Clinton. If Hillary gets the nomination, white evangelicals will come out in force, no matter which republican gets the nomination.

 

[Yossarian]

How are the evangelicals likely to react if the Republican candidate is someone who believes all that crazy Book of Mormon stuff?

 

[mears]

Romney may be in for some trouble if mccain wins New Hampshire. But the race for the republicans will be up for grabs after NH in my opinion.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={65FD6865-E2EA-4433-B755-34639D1A3EA2}

Hillary may be in trouble, it seems as though the polls are trending towards Obama.

If Obama wins two solidly white states (Iowa, New Hampshire) we head to other states where african americans play a big role in the democratic primary voting (like South Carolina)

Obama might actually win the dem nomination.

 

[dilute micro]

I won't support Huckabee because he is a protectionist who is way behind in foreign affairs. Also his plan to scrap the IRS and establish a national sales tax is stupid.

Holy crap dude. Are you serious?

Can't you see what's happening to America when we can't make anything any more and depend on China to make stuff. This isn't benign capitalism. It's economic warfare. You know China subsidizes their industry. They're selling things to Americans cheaper than it cost for them to make. Those $10 shirts at Old Navy aren't going to be so cheap when eventually China raises the prices because competition is all but gone and they own the market. And the shirts are still going to be the kind that don't last.

If Huckabee is onto this then he is way ahead.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

mears doesn't care because he's with the people who make their money on the skim off the top of that trade.

They do just fine while your working class gets screwed.

 

[catrina]

Seriously though, why does Hilary Clinton inspire such visceral loathing among the right wing?

Rush Limbaugh.

He had a whole radio show dedicated to Clinton bashing, especially Hillary. It was really quite sick. I think it's thinly veiled misogyny.

 

[mears]

Holy crap dude. Are you serious?

Can't you see what's happening to America when we can't make anything any more and depend on China to make stuff. This isn't benign capitalism. It's economic warfare. You know China subsidizes their industry. They're selling things to Americans cheaper than it cost for them to make. Those $10 shirts at Old Navy aren't going to be so cheap when eventually China raises the prices because competition is all but gone and they own the market. And the shirts are still going to be the kind that don't last.

If Huckabee is onto this then he is way ahead.

Poor people in America need food and clothing as well. If they can get $10 shirts made in China than its better for them versus the same made in America shirt for $25. There will always be better places to make rubber duckies and underwear, like China or Vietnam.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

"Better places" from whose point of view though mears?

From the point of view of the US working class, or the point of view of those who get still their fat percentage, possibly a fatter one, wherever actual production is located?

A little thought experiment here.

Do you think the US would be exporting its production jobs to third world countries with worse labour conditions if their ruling class didn't make more money that way?

I don't think so ...

 

[mears]

"Better places" from whose point of view though mears?

From the point of view of the US working class, or the point of view of those who get still their fat percentage, possibly a fatter one, wherever actual production is located?

A little thought experiment here.

Do you think the US would be exporting its production jobs to third world countries with worse labour conditions if their ruling class didn't make more money that way?

I don't think so ...

Thanks for showing so much interest in my country.

"Better places" mean economically more feasible locations, like China, Malaysia, Pakistan, India. A garmet factory in India exports shirts to western europe and the US which provides jobs for Indian workers, who may have no other means of employment. This gives rise to a middle class as we are seeing in China and India.The consumers in our countries (including poor consumers) spend less on the shirt and have more money in their pocket.

As the manufacturing base erodes in the US, these workers pick up jobs in other industries. We know this is the cases because th United States has a very low 5% unemployment. Countries with more import controls, combined with stricter labour laws (like France, though Sarkozy thankfully understands all this) have higher unemployment.

God knows what type of economic system you advocate, its not like you can articulate an economic position to share on this forum.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

And of course, 'economic feasibility' (a synonym for ruling class profits) has to take priority over all other considerations whatsoever right?

 

[nino_savatte]

Thanks for showing so much interest in my country.

"Better places" mean economically more feasible locations, like China, Malaysia, Pakistan, India. A garmet factory in India exports shirts to western europe and the US which provides jobs for Indian workers, who may have no other means of employment. This gives rise to a middle class as we are seeing in China and India.The consumers in our countries (including poor consumers) spend less on the shirt and have more money in their pocket.

As the manufacturing base erodes in the US, these workers pick up jobs in other industries. We know this is the cases because th United States has a very low 5% unemployment. Countries with more import controls, combined with stricter labour laws (like France, though Sarkozy thankfully understands all this) have higher unemployment.

God knows what type of economic system you advocate, its not like you can articulate an economic position to share on this forum.

A first class reason for why no one should take mears seriously. The first sentence is the giveaway.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Poor people in America need food and clothing as well. If they can get $10 shirts made in China than its better for them versus the same made in America shirt for $25. There will always be better places to make rubber duckies and underwear, like China or Vietnam.

That just shows how out of touch you are with truely poor people. Poor people buy $2 shirts at the Salvation Army.

Old Navy is the darling of the middle class who are willing to buy crap, craply made as long as they can have a 1/2 dozen in different colours.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

As the manufacturing base erodes in the US, these workers pick up jobs in other industries. We know this is the cases because th United States has a very low 5% unemployment. Countries with more import controls, combined with stricter labour laws (like France, though Sarkozy thankfully understands all this) have higher unemployment.

An $8 and hour job working at Menards in place of a manufacturering job paying $15 is only a "fair trade" for the super-rich who make money on the deal. You know full well that the jobs that those workers are getting pay about half what they were making.

 

[Idris2002]

An $8 and hour job working at Menards in place of a manufacturering job paying $15 is only a "fair trade" for the super-rich who make money on the deal. You know full well that the jobs that those workers are getting pay about half what they were making.

And their rent and bills aren't reduced by an equivalent amount, I'm thinking. . .

 

[dilute micro]

A garmet factory in India exports shirts to western europe and the US which provides jobs for Indian workers, who may have no other means of employment.

Not to keep sticking it to you mears but shouldn't the US government be concerned with jobs for its own citizens first? Why do clock punching republicans automatically defend anything big business does?

Remember when Bush Sr marveled at a scanner when he went into a grocery store? They are not us and we aren't them. They are not our friends. They don't know us.

 

[mears]

That just shows how out of touch you are with truely poor people. Poor people buy $2 shirts at the Salvation Army.

Old Navy is the darling of the middle class who are willing to buy crap, craply made as long as they can have a 1/2 dozen in different colours.

I don't see how protectionish helps poor people.

Add if you don't like Old Navy, than good for you, shop at another store.

 

[mears]

An $8 and hour job working at Menards in place of a manufacturering job paying $15 is only a "fair trade" for the super-rich who make money on the deal. You know full well that the jobs that those workers are getting pay about half what they were making.

I don't know that and neither do you, that is just a general statement. Economies shift, jobs come and go and that is just a fact of life. The western world can't save their manufacturing sector when people in other parts of the globe will do the work for half the price.

 

[mears]

Not to keep sticking it to you mears but shouldn't the US government be concerned with jobs for its own citizens first? Why do clock punching republicans automatically defend anything big business does?

Remember when Bush Sr marveled at a scanner when he went into a grocery store? They are not us and we aren't them. They are not our friends. They don't know us.

And that is one of the reasons Bush Sr. lost to Clinton.

Globalization doesn't play favorites, capital goes where it pleases, welcome to the real world boys and girls.

 

[peacepete]

And that is one of the reasons Bush Sr. lost to Clinton.

Globalization doesn't play favorites, capital goes where it pleases, welcome to the real world boys and girls.

there's another real world as well, were people work together cooperatively to shape their world around them making choices together honestly and openly about how they act, chosing to reject certain economic choices that a free market might make available to them and organising to restrict the economic opportunities of others in attempts to protect the other aspects of life.

this is a reason why capital is not free to travel everywhere around the world, and it's power is in retreat in many places as well as it is in expansion elsewhere.

if we're being all 'realist' about this it's worth acknowledging other things equally real.

btw I'll admit I have no idea of what context you're speaking in, but i find the ideology in your post totally transparent.

eta: that youtube clip if that's indeed what it shows is cool.

 

[dilute micro]

And that is one of the reasons Bush Sr. lost to Clinton.

Globalization doesn't play favorites, capital goes where it pleases, welcome to the real world boys and girls.

So the same could be said when somebody complains about lead in their kid's toys and HMOs that work hard to not provide health care... Capital doesn't think. People do and that's why sweatshops exist and lead paint on toys.

I'm not a republican, democrat or independent. I am a citizen and that is supposed to matter. These candidates are supposed to care about people and not capital or globalization. I'm not going to play the game again where they pretend that I matter to get a vote.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I don't know that and neither do you, that is just a general statement. Economies shift, jobs come and go and that is just a fact of life. The western world can't save their manufacturing sector when people in other parts of the globe will do the work for half the price.

No, its been proved by study after study.

Whereas the average hourly wage of a manufacturing worker is $17.13, the available replacement wage is often less than $10, on average. The reduced income of displaced manufacturing workers decreases their purchasing power. Consequently, Ohio’s economy as a whole has been hurt by manufacturing job loss.

http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/Intl_Trade_factfile.pdf