I'd vote for Dean because he has the balls to speak out against the war and not just Bush's approach to the war. I'll never vote for Clark or Lieberman for that reason. Still don't know a whole lot about the candidates, though, so I'm completely undecided.
Lieberman and Clark are pretty far apart on the war. Lieberman is what you say (supports the war but is against Bush's approach), as are Gephardt and Edwards. Kerry is a bit less supportive, but Clark is the most anti-war aside from Dean and the nobodys (Kucinich et al.). Actually Dean and Clark are probably pretty close on their position on the war.
Dean has been conferring with Gore since last September... they've developed a rapport...
I think it's silly to act like this is some big betrayal... that Gore has been out stumping for Leiberman and all of a sudden he switches candidates? that's not what happened... I bet Leiberman was extremely distant from Gore... and didn't even ask for his endorsement. It goes both ways.
14. Dean said that he would have kept the steel 201's in place, and that he will support a tougher trade enforcement stance on China, and other U.S. trading partners, not to raise barriers in the U.S., but to encourage China and other, lesser developed trading partners to "raise their standards".
-- Dean said that he originally supported NAFTA and China's WTO membership precisely because he feels that, in the long run, free trade "helps create a middle class", and that, "eventually" it will in both Mexico and China. The problem for now, which is to say, the problem for the political process, is that "the U.S. has not got time to wait" due to the trade deficit, and job losses which will never be replaced by adequately paying employment.
You know this is a perfect example of how Democratic policies are criticism followed by perfection plans.
I would keep the steel tarrifs in place. Of course no mentionod the BILLIONS in retalitory tariffs that were ready to be levied back against the U.S.
Support a tougher trade stance on China... how?... no specifics, just nice rhetoric. Raise their standards? How.... again the same....
In reality, making them raise their standards means making them raise their costs which means it is really....fair trade...
Then we see the whole second half, where the U.S. is responsible for creating middle classes in other countries. That is why some people have labeled fair traders racist. So somehow we have to stop the cost of creating these middle classes and the job losses as well, but not actually harm these countries. Just convince them to raise their standards and wages to where their people would make the same amount as ours. Then they could trade freely with us, but they would lose since it would be cheaper to produce it domestically than abroad which is why they don't raise the standards in the first place and.....
It's the perfect plan...really....and it's better than what Bush did, I swear...
I'd vote for Dean because he has the balls to speak out against the war and not just Bush's approach to the war. I'll never vote for Clark or Lieberman for that reason. Still don't know a whole lot about the candidates, though, so I'm completely undecided.
i don't think that you have listened to Clark.
He is more than merely critical of the means of executing a war, but very very critical of the decision to have gone to war at all.
Clark can get right on the anti Bush rhetoric . . . you'd be surprised if you listened to him . . . he is not merely a conservative looking for an opportunity to get swing votes . . he is elloquent and critical
and he does not mince words about his critiqu of the war either: probably, as I guessed earlier, he is too eloquent for people to actually understand him though . .
Disregarding, of course, the fact that this represents the TOTAL hipocrisy of the Conservative mindset as it operates in the US:
We can absolutely FORCE developing countries to adopt "Fair Trade" and make it a stipulation on their Emergency Loans, and thereby undercut their whole economies with our government subsidized exports (just the tip of the iceberg here too)
and we do so becuase the "Free Trade" is "Good for them" in the long run
. . . just a little 'shock treatment' . .
However, when actual Free Trade threatens our own industry we hippocritically deploy tariffs
Why do I even need to point out the deep hippocrisy here!!!!!!!
What is the real interest?: PROFIT
Let it be known: I AM FOR TARIFFS. however, they cannot be selective and only for the powerful, and, they must be something that the importing country can decide to impose in order to save their local industry . . .
if we can impose tariffs then Third World Countries should be allowed to impose tariffs!
It is worse than the Mafia really!!! I mean, whole countries' economies are at stake . . . large populations kept in poverty (look at Jamaica!!) so that we can force subsidized imports as well as strong arm them into accepting "TAX FREE ZONES" which amount to SLAVE LABOR CAMPS!!!
We should also understand that it is really in our interest to aid countries to develop their infrastructure where there is none . . . . and dare I say it, in many developing countries, that means that they should have a measure of "SOCIALISM"; where there are certain services that are taken care of in a not-for-profit manner (medicine, low cost housing). . . until that country has the infrastructure, (AND A LOCAL ONE TOO not a string of Burger Kings!!) necessary to allow private economic development and growth!.
"in the long run" it would grease the skids of equitable global economic development without stunting real human lives
Disregarding, of course, the fact that this represents the TOTAL hipocrisy of the Conservative mindset as it operates in the US:
We can absolutely FORCE developing countries to adopt "Fair Trade" and make it a stipulation on their Emergency Loans, and thereby undercut their whole economies with our government subsidized exports (just the tip of the iceberg here too)
and we do so becuase the "Free Trade" is "Good for them" in the long run
. . . just a little 'shock treatment' . .
However, when actual Free Trade threatens our own industry we hippocritically deploy tariffs
Why do I even need to point out the deep hippocrisy here!!!!!!!
What is the real interest?: PROFIT
Let it be known: I AM FOR TARIFFS. however, they cannot be selective and only for the powerful, and, they must be something that the importing country can decide to impose in order to save their local industry . . .
if we can impose tariffs then Third World Countries should be allowed to impose tariffs!
It is worse than the Mafia really!!! I mean, whole countries' economies are at stake . . . large populations kept in poverty (look at Jamaica!!) so that we can force subsidized imports as well as strong arm them into accepting "TAX FREE ZONES" which amount to SLAVE LABOR CAMPS!!!
We should also understand that it is really in our interest to aid countries to develop their infrastructure where there is none . . . . and dare I say it, in many developing countries, that means that they should have a measure of "SOCIALISM"; where there are certain services that are taken care of in a not-for-profit manner (medicine, low cost housing). . . until that country has the infrastructure, (AND A LOCAL ONE TOO not a string of Burger Kings!!) necessary to allow private economic development and growth!.
"in the long run" it would grease the skids of equitable global economic development without stunting real human lives
pfflam I agree with you in a big way with your post here.
Equitable global development is a priority of mine as well. Fair trade rules and regulations need to be adjusted and understood by all trading parties and global in observation. "Piece by piece" tariff by tariff at will is dangerous. GAFTRAR (Generally accepted fair trade rules and regulations) is my solution to this problem.
Until the world adopts a a trade model with integrity such as my GAFTRAR model we will live in a context of political manipulation and corruption at the expense of human dignity and progress.
Gore basically betrayed Clinton too, so Lieberman shouldn't have been surprised.
I think where Lieberman is wrong is in thinking that Gore has changed since 2000, from a Clinton moderate-type Democrat to a populist Dean-type Democrat. Gore changed for the 2000 election. He became a populist for that election. He wasn't a Clinton moderate-type when he picked Lieberman.
What's funny to me is that Lieberman is absolutely right in the center of where Clinton was when all the Dems loved him. What's changed is Bush - everyone is so eager to be the anti-Bush, that we say "get rid of all the Bush tax cuts!" even if it's not smart politically.
I'm still voting for Lieberman in the primary (if he makes it this far), but I think Clark is probably going to be the only hope for those of us who want to actually win the general election.
l am not a specialist of US politic but i have read an interesting paper about Howard Dean.
They said that the man was a perfect candidate for the primaries, and have all the chances to win. The problem is that unlike Clinton who was a neo left (the equivalent of Blair), Dean is a tax,tax, spent, spent politician.
The man is not enough at the center, and too much at the left of the democrat party, to have a chance to win the election.
In short, Howard Dean is the best chance for GW Bush.
Gore basically betrayed Clinton too, so Lieberman shouldn't have been surprised.
I think where Lieberman is wrong is in thinking that Gore has changed since 2000, from a Clinton moderate-type Democrat to a populist Dean-type Democrat. Gore changed for the 2000 election. He became a populist for that election. He wasn't a Clinton moderate-type when he picked Lieberman.
What's funny to me is that Lieberman is absolutely right in the center of where Clinton was when all the Dems loved him. What's changed is Bush - everyone is so eager to be the anti-Bush, that we say "get rid of all the Bush tax cuts!" even if it's not smart politically.
I'm still voting for Lieberman in the primary (if he makes it this far), but I think Clark is probably going to be the only hope for those of us who want to actually win the general election.
Why? There was no Dean at that point, and Lieberman was running as a VP on the ticket. He's completely unelectable as a Presidential candidate.
From memory Lieberman was supposed to add votes to Gore. He was a man of high moral standarts, at the contrary of Clinton. By choosing Lieberman, Gore claimed, that he was very different in a moral point of vue from Clinton.
Lieberman was a sort of add. That's why Gore may supported him as vice -president but don't want him for president.
In the US constitution, excepting when the president is defective, the vice president do almost nothing except some minor official appearances.
Why? What's wrong with him? Policy wise, he seems to be the closest to Clinton.
Some democrats want a hothead from Vermont who will have popular support in two or three northeast states but will fail at beating Bush in the general election.
It is quite troubling. I guess these tranced Dean freaks really want 4 more years of Bush.
One has to be intoxicated to believe Dean can win the south.
Clark on the other hand could beat Bush so bad it is not even funny.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
"back-stab?"
Troll.
i think captainspunkmeyer made a valid point.
lieberman has every right to feel betrayed.
Originally posted by tonton
I'd vote for Dean because he has the balls to speak out against the war and not just Bush's approach to the war. I'll never vote for Clark or Lieberman for that reason. Still don't know a whole lot about the candidates, though, so I'm completely undecided.
Lieberman and Clark are pretty far apart on the war. Lieberman is what you say (supports the war but is against Bush's approach), as are Gephardt and Edwards. Kerry is a bit less supportive, but Clark is the most anti-war aside from Dean and the nobodys (Kucinich et al.). Actually Dean and Clark are probably pretty close on their position on the war.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
You forget that 49% of the American Public already thinks the war was a bad idea.
I thought that was wrong, and I just had to find the poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...-iraq-poll.htm
Dean has been conferring with Gore since last September... they've developed a rapport...
I think it's silly to act like this is some big betrayal... that Gore has been out stumping for Leiberman and all of a sudden he switches candidates? that's not what happened... I bet Leiberman was extremely distant from Gore... and didn't even ask for his endorsement. It goes both ways.
14. Dean said that he would have kept the steel 201's in place, and that he will support a tougher trade enforcement stance on China, and other U.S. trading partners, not to raise barriers in the U.S., but to encourage China and other, lesser developed trading partners to "raise their standards".
-- Dean said that he originally supported NAFTA and China's WTO membership precisely because he feels that, in the long run, free trade "helps create a middle class", and that, "eventually" it will in both Mexico and China. The problem for now, which is to say, the problem for the political process, is that "the U.S. has not got time to wait" due to the trade deficit, and job losses which will never be replaced by adequately paying employment.
You know this is a perfect example of how Democratic policies are criticism followed by perfection plans.
I would keep the steel tarrifs in place. Of course no mentionod the BILLIONS in retalitory tariffs that were ready to be levied back against the U.S.
Support a tougher trade stance on China... how?... no specifics, just nice rhetoric. Raise their standards? How.... again the same....
In reality, making them raise their standards means making them raise their costs which means it is really....fair trade...
Then we see the whole second half, where the U.S. is responsible for creating middle classes in other countries. That is why some people have labeled fair traders racist. So somehow we have to stop the cost of creating these middle classes and the job losses as well, but not actually harm these countries. Just convince them to raise their standards and wages to where their people would make the same amount as ours. Then they could trade freely with us, but they would lose since it would be cheaper to produce it domestically than abroad which is why they don't raise the standards in the first place and.....
It's the perfect plan...really....and it's better than what Bush did, I swear...
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
I'd vote for Dean because he has the balls to speak out against the war and not just Bush's approach to the war. I'll never vote for Clark or Lieberman for that reason. Still don't know a whole lot about the candidates, though, so I'm completely undecided.
i don't think that you have listened to Clark.
He is more than merely critical of the means of executing a war, but very very critical of the decision to have gone to war at all.
Clark can get right on the anti Bush rhetoric . . . you'd be surprised if you listened to him . . . he is not merely a conservative looking for an opportunity to get swing votes . . he is elloquent and critical
and he does not mince words about his critiqu of the war either: probably, as I guessed earlier, he is too eloquent for people to actually understand him though . .
Originally posted by trumptman
I would keep the steel tarrifs in place.
Disregarding, of course, the fact that this represents the TOTAL hipocrisy of the Conservative mindset as it operates in the US:
We can absolutely FORCE developing countries to adopt "Fair Trade" and make it a stipulation on their Emergency Loans, and thereby undercut their whole economies with our government subsidized exports (just the tip of the iceberg here too)
and we do so becuase the "Free Trade" is "Good for them" in the long run
. . . just a little 'shock treatment' . .
However, when actual Free Trade threatens our own industry we hippocritically deploy tariffs
Why do I even need to point out the deep hippocrisy here!!!!!!!
What is the real interest?: PROFIT
Let it be known: I AM FOR TARIFFS. however, they cannot be selective and only for the powerful, and, they must be something that the importing country can decide to impose in order to save their local industry . . .
if we can impose tariffs then Third World Countries should be allowed to impose tariffs!
It is worse than the Mafia really!!! I mean, whole countries' economies are at stake . . . large populations kept in poverty (look at Jamaica!!) so that we can force subsidized imports as well as strong arm them into accepting "TAX FREE ZONES" which amount to SLAVE LABOR CAMPS!!!
We should also understand that it is really in our interest to aid countries to develop their infrastructure where there is none . . . . and dare I say it, in many developing countries, that means that they should have a measure of "SOCIALISM"; where there are certain services that are taken care of in a not-for-profit manner (medicine, low cost housing). . . until that country has the infrastructure, (AND A LOCAL ONE TOO not a string of Burger Kings!!) necessary to allow private economic development and growth!.
"in the long run" it would grease the skids of equitable global economic development without stunting real human lives
Originally posted by pfflam
Disregarding, of course, the fact that this represents the TOTAL hipocrisy of the Conservative mindset as it operates in the US:
We can absolutely FORCE developing countries to adopt "Fair Trade" and make it a stipulation on their Emergency Loans, and thereby undercut their whole economies with our government subsidized exports (just the tip of the iceberg here too)
and we do so becuase the "Free Trade" is "Good for them" in the long run
. . . just a little 'shock treatment' . .
However, when actual Free Trade threatens our own industry we hippocritically deploy tariffs
Why do I even need to point out the deep hippocrisy here!!!!!!!
What is the real interest?: PROFIT
Let it be known: I AM FOR TARIFFS. however, they cannot be selective and only for the powerful, and, they must be something that the importing country can decide to impose in order to save their local industry . . .
if we can impose tariffs then Third World Countries should be allowed to impose tariffs!
It is worse than the Mafia really!!! I mean, whole countries' economies are at stake . . . large populations kept in poverty (look at Jamaica!!) so that we can force subsidized imports as well as strong arm them into accepting "TAX FREE ZONES" which amount to SLAVE LABOR CAMPS!!!
We should also understand that it is really in our interest to aid countries to develop their infrastructure where there is none . . . . and dare I say it, in many developing countries, that means that they should have a measure of "SOCIALISM"; where there are certain services that are taken care of in a not-for-profit manner (medicine, low cost housing). . . until that country has the infrastructure, (AND A LOCAL ONE TOO not a string of Burger Kings!!) necessary to allow private economic development and growth!.
"in the long run" it would grease the skids of equitable global economic development without stunting real human lives
pfflam I agree with you in a big way with your post here.
Equitable global development is a priority of mine as well. Fair trade rules and regulations need to be adjusted and understood by all trading parties and global in observation. "Piece by piece" tariff by tariff at will is dangerous. GAFTRAR (Generally accepted fair trade rules and regulations) is my solution to this problem.
Until the world adopts a a trade model with integrity such as my GAFTRAR model we will live in a context of political manipulation and corruption at the expense of human dignity and progress.
Fellowship
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i think captainspunkmeyer made a valid point.
lieberman has every right to feel betrayed.
Does he?
Originally posted by finboy
I thought that was wrong, and I just had to find the poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...-iraq-poll.htm
Yup. 60% approve of going to war in the first place.
51% think it's been botched since then.
I think where Lieberman is wrong is in thinking that Gore has changed since 2000, from a Clinton moderate-type Democrat to a populist Dean-type Democrat. Gore changed for the 2000 election. He became a populist for that election. He wasn't a Clinton moderate-type when he picked Lieberman.
What's funny to me is that Lieberman is absolutely right in the center of where Clinton was when all the Dems loved him. What's changed is Bush - everyone is so eager to be the anti-Bush, that we say "get rid of all the Bush tax cuts!" even if it's not smart politically.
I'm still voting for Lieberman in the primary (if he makes it this far), but I think Clark is probably going to be the only hope for those of us who want to actually win the general election.
They said that the man was a perfect candidate for the primaries, and have all the chances to win. The problem is that unlike Clinton who was a neo left (the equivalent of Blair), Dean is a tax,tax, spent, spent politician.
The man is not enough at the center, and too much at the left of the democrat party, to have a chance to win the election.
In short, Howard Dean is the best chance for GW Bush.
Originally posted by BRussell
Gore basically betrayed Clinton too, so Lieberman shouldn't have been surprised.
I think where Lieberman is wrong is in thinking that Gore has changed since 2000, from a Clinton moderate-type Democrat to a populist Dean-type Democrat. Gore changed for the 2000 election. He became a populist for that election. He wasn't a Clinton moderate-type when he picked Lieberman.
What's funny to me is that Lieberman is absolutely right in the center of where Clinton was when all the Dems loved him. What's changed is Bush - everyone is so eager to be the anti-Bush, that we say "get rid of all the Bush tax cuts!" even if it's not smart politically.
I'm still voting for Lieberman in the primary (if he makes it this far), but I think Clark is probably going to be the only hope for those of us who want to actually win the general election.
very very very well said.... all points.
Fellows
Originally posted by majorspunk
Leiberman was good enough to be Gore's vice President but not not good enough to support now that Leiberman is running for President?
Why? There was no Dean at that point, and Lieberman was running as a VP on the ticket. He's completely unelectable as a Presidential candidate.
Originally posted by midwinter
Why? There was no Dean at that point, and Lieberman was running as a VP on the ticket. He's completely unelectable as a Presidential candidate.
From memory Lieberman was supposed to add votes to Gore. He was a man of high moral standarts, at the contrary of Clinton. By choosing Lieberman, Gore claimed, that he was very different in a moral point of vue from Clinton.
Lieberman was a sort of add. That's why Gore may supported him as vice -president but don't want him for president.
In the US constitution, excepting when the president is defective, the vice president do almost nothing except some minor official appearances.
Originally posted by midwinter
He's completely unelectable as a Presidential candidate.
Why? What's wrong with him? Policy wise, he seems to be the closest to Clinton.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Why? What's wrong with him? Policy wise, he seems to be the closest to Clinton.
Some democrats want a hothead from Vermont who will have popular support in two or three northeast states but will fail at beating Bush in the general election.
It is quite troubling. I guess these tranced Dean freaks really want 4 more years of Bush.
One has to be intoxicated to believe Dean can win the south.
Clark on the other hand could beat Bush so bad it is not even funny.
Fellowship
Originally posted by majorspunk
Why? What's wrong with him? Policy wise, he seems to be the closest to Clinton.
I knew Bill Clinton, sir, and Joe Lieberman is no Bill Clinton.
Three reasons:
1) Most liberals, so far as I can tell, believe Joe a Republican (didn't he used to be?)
2) He's not an inspiring public speaker.
3) America has a long and rich tradition of not electing non-Protestant presidents. Sad, but true.