The ..2012.... Political thread
-
And the US voted him in anyway with the campaign using wedge issues. That is what we have been dealing with in the US. Yes, its a brand new day
I hope you are well
-
Bill:
Oh, come off it Matt! You're not that thick are you? I posted my comment on a thread called "The 2008 US Presidential Race" not "The universal philosophy of popularity versus merit." Later, in response to your semantic quibbling, I dumbed it down for you. If you still can't work out that what I am talking about is politics and democracy, then there's nothing I can do for you.
Thank You, Bill. Indeed I did need to come off it. And I thank you for straightening me out and also for your attempts at dumbing these wise concepts down for me to show even me the light. At least as much as my general thickness will allow. But if you don't mind, I do have a few lingering thoughts. It's a little lengthy, but just try and follow me here, if you will: If I recall, it was not me, but you who brought the concept of "goodness" into the discussion, right? And perhaps I'm wrong, but the last I checked, I believe "goodness" IS a matter of philosophy for it is a moral/ethical issue, is it not? So when we discuss goodness, especially when you make the argument of how "goodness = popularity," matters of philosophy do seem to be perfectly valid in the discussion, even the "2008 U.S. Presidential Thread," which thanks for reminding me which thread we're in. So for this, when I brought in my examples of Jesus and Socrates, I believe they were valid. Because, and maybe my general thickness gets in the way here, both were very good people morally. I mean, the first one is Jesus, for crying out loud. You don't get any more good than that; at least I don't think. But we all know what his popularity was at the time. Same goes for Socrates. They were the definitions of unpopular. All of this, despite being morally good. Of course, we know their ultimate fate and it wasn't pretty. But you see, Bill, here's what confuses me and, if you could, I would be ever so humbled if you could explain this to me: if goodness is a moral and ethical issue, and if goodness does equal popularity (and conversely, badness = unpopularity), how could two people be so morally good and yet be so unpopular at the same time to the point of death? Maybe it's me, but that seems to conflict with your entire argument, does it not? But wait; if I am being charitable in describing your argument, and I do try to be for clarity's sake, you say that this is irrelevant. Because you are speaking in terms of politics, democracy. Therefore, the above examples are futile. Is this correct? If so, do forgive me. However, if this is also the case, then this seems to imply another type of goodness: a political goodness, if you will. For if it implied any moral goodness, then my above examples would be valid and also refute the concept of goodness = popularity; but since you say they are not, this means purely a political type of goodness. Or at least a goodness that encompasses both politics and democracy, but, for the sake of this argument, let's define it as a "political goodness." To which this all raises the question: if I am on track, and my thickness can derail me, I admit, would you care to define just what a "political goodness" is? And how this distinguishes itself completely from moral goodness? In other words, I'm afraid that in order to understand these concepts which are apparently beyond my intelligence, I'm going to need you, if you so wish, to explain the use of "goodness" in politics; can something be good politically, but not morally? Now you do mention the word "please" in your next sentence. So is it merely a matter of appeasing and, if so, is that a qualification for this "goodness?" Clarification on this vaguery is needed.
Bill:
In any democracy, the candidates who please the people the most, are naturally the most popular and therefore win elections. It's not rocket science. With respect mate, stop trying to spin your way out of it.
Gee, Bill, thank you for educating me on how the election process, at least in my home country, works and informing that it is not, indeed, rocket science; I do appreciate that, since I'm sure I must have argued against that somewhere.
Bill:
Would you like some sugar for those grapes?
Ah, but you see, all I did was just take your sentence and replace the candidate's names and change what they were talking about. The form is still pretty much in tact. So if using that makes me in need of sugar for my grapes, then I'm afraid that, based on your similar sentence regarding two other candidates, I just can't get that sugar from someone who also hasn't had it for their grapes in about... oh, say eight years.
-
Well, dear Matthew, I was in fact trying to compliment you on your intelligence. If all I get for that is sarcasm, then so be it. Similarly, responding with sarcasm when I explain the basic relationship between popularity and winning elections, doesn't change that basic reality. That was the simple point I was making - the one that you insist on misconstruing. You recall incorrectly. I said nothing about "goodness" in my original comment. You were the one who used that word in attempting to spin my words into something I didn't say. So if John McCain had won the election, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he is a good person? If you're arguing that the US electoral system is in dire need of reform, then you'll get no argument from me. I've been saying it for years and it's intriguing that a lot of Republican suddenly get it.
Be honest here: you are desperately trying to find a way to convince yourself that 65 million people were somehow duped into voting for Barack Obama and that their judgement of him is faulty. If you want to believe that so many of your countrymen are stupid, then go ahead. It's nothing to do with me. Similarly, you can waste as much time as you like trying to muddy the distinction between politics and high philosophy but it isn't going to change the simple reality that not enough people voted for your guy. That doesn't mean he's a bad candidate - far from it. It simply means that according to the judgement of the majority of people who gave a toss either way, Obama was the better man for the job. Spin it any way you like, the people have spoken. Or to put it another way, stop working the ref and look at the scoreboard.
-
Another simple fact of political life - one that I have quoted before and after every election is this: In a democracy (even an American democracy), you get the government you deserve. And you can take that any way you like.
-
mustangsally10:
"There was no reason for us to become involved _ That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks," he told the Independent newspaper. (optional)
I wish it was all that simple MustangSally and Moggy
, but it was not. I'm not sure if either of you were old enough to remember what occurred on the floor of the Senate back in 1992 but here it is from Al Gore himself: Two portions of his speech: To hear the full speech on video go to: http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/06/12/al-gore-blasts-president-bush-for-ignoring-iraqs-ties-to-terrorism/ This had been brewing for quite some time. It was because of the speeches on the floor of the house by Al Gore that I became personally involved with the plight of the Kurds and the dangers Saddam Hussein posed to the rest of the world. I still believe Al Gore was correct. ?I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action? I believed him then and I still do. 1998:
Quote: Al Gore ?The United States will not flag in supporting your efforts to promote a change of regime. I believe that there can be no peace for the Iraqi people and a genuine peace for the people of the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours,? Gore told the representatives of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an American-backed group seeking to overthrow Saddam. ?In the interests of regional peace and for the sake of human decency, [Saddam] must be removed from power. That is the policy of this administration. It is the policy I support. It is the policy I am personally committed to,? he added.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/489/re8.htm 9/11 and Iraq where two different issues. Similar in nature but seperate.
-
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
"There was no reason for us to become involved _ That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks," he told the Independent newspaper. (optional)
I wish it was all that simple MustangSally and Moggy
, but it was not. I'm not sure if either of you were old enough to remember what occurred on the floor of the Senate back in 1992 but here it is from Al Gore himself: Two portions of his speech: To hear the full speech on video go to: http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/06/12/al-gore-blasts-president-bush-for-ignoring-iraqs-ties-to-terrorism/ This had been brewing for quite some time. It was because of the speeches on the floor of the house by Al Gore that I became personally involved with the plight of the Kurds and the dangers Saddam Hussein posed to the rest of the world. I still believe Al Gore was correct. ?I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action? I believed him then and I still do. 1998:
Quote: Al Gore ?The United States will not flag in supporting your efforts to promote a change of regime. I believe that there can be no peace for the Iraqi people and a genuine peace for the people of the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours,? Gore told the representatives of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an American-backed group seeking to overthrow Saddam. ?In the interests of regional peace and for the sake of human decency, [Saddam] must be removed from power. That is the policy of this administration. It is the policy I support. It is the policy I am personally committed to,? he added.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/489/re8.htm 9/11 and Iraq where two different issues. Similar in nature but seperate.
What politicans do is what matters and this is bushs baby.
:
:
: Gee you must be getting dizzy from all the spinning
-
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
[quote="mustangsally10]I still believe Al Gore was correct. 1998:
Quote: Al Gore ?The United States will not flag in supporting your efforts to promote a change of regime. I believe that there can be no peace for the Iraqi people and a genuine peace for the people of the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours,? Gore told the representatives of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an American-backed group seeking to overthrow Saddam. ?In the interests of regional peace and for the sake of human decency, [Saddam] must be removed from power. That is the policy of this administration. It is the policy I support. It is the policy I am personally committed to,? he added.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/489/re8.htm 9/11 and Iraq where two different issues. Similar in nature but seperate.
What politicans do is what matters and this is bushs baby.
:
:
: Gee you must be getting dizzy from all the spinning
In the interests of regional peace and for the sake of human decency, [Saddam] must be removed from power. That is the policy of this administration. It is the policy I support. It is the policy I am personally committed to
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/489/re8.htm So you are saying you disagree with Al Gore?
:
-
If the evidence was so conclusive that saddam was a threat....why so many lies, exagerations, cover ups ect ? Why did most countries and the UN not join in the invasion ? when shown the' proof ' Why invade a county that had nothing to do with 9/11 ? why not invade saudi Arabia ? ( a true democratic nation
: 0 ) I am afraid the US and UK are to blame in general, dont forget it was Clinton who started the no fly zones , and the UN sanctions , which killed approx 1 million people .....mainly children IS IT ANY WONDER PEOPLE HATE US ? It was thatcher and reagan who backed Iraq . " my enemys , enemy is my freind" in the Iraq- Iran war. Not learning their lesson they used the same adage when Russia invaded Afganistan....leading to al queda and bin laden , and the current warlords in Afganistan. The US have made a gigantic balls up of the whole region ( not forgeting backing Isreal ) Have they learned their lesson ?.....NO lets put bases in Poland and encourage Georgia to join NATO......STOP MEDDLEING http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html A interesting little vid
-
Now that the Presidential Race is over, at least for 2008, maybe this topic should become the "U.S. Political Disagreements" thread.
-
I think Obama is a highly inteligent man, and genuine....but if things carry on as normal i would like to see the UK distance ourselves from the one sided 'special relationship' and start intigrating more with the rest of Europe ( not power wise i must add....but culturaly )
-
moggy:
I am afraid the US and UK are to blame in general, dont forget it was Clinton who started the no fly zones , and the UN sanctions , which killed approx 1 million people .....mainly children IS IT ANY WONDER PEOPLE HATE US ? It was thatcher and reagan who backed Iraq . " my enemys , enemy is my freind" in the Iraq- Iran war. Not learning their lesson they used the same adage when Russia invaded Afganistan....leading to al queda and bin laden , and the current warlords in Afganistan. The US have made a gigantic balls up of the whole region ( not forgeting backing Isreal ) Have they learned their lesson ?.....NO lets put bases in Poland and encourage Georgia to join NATO......STOP MEDDLEING http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html A interesting little vid
I totally understand how you feel! Believe me
The problem is when another country poses a threat and or blantantly commits genocide against it's own people, what do you do? When talking about world affairs it gets extremely complicated. The U.S. use to be have an isolationist view as you obviously adopted yourself personally by your statement. And the U.S. dragged it's feet getting into WWll. And the U.S. turned it's head on Rwanda as well as the UN. I totally understand your frustrations. But what if like in WWll, another country invaded your country. Would you still wish the U.S. to adopt the isolationist view? It's so complicated Moggy and their are no real clear cut answers
.
-
Hi
( trouble being his son is one of the ' new 'labour muppets.)You are one of the few who can discuss things sensibly on the bush side . ....yeah i know what you are saying ....BUT surely real proof is needed. The weapons inspectors said everything was in order ( one of the main ones resigned) When you lie and make up proof , then there clearly is something wrong. Bush , Bliar and co lied....this as been proven. Iraq as been proven not to be a threat ( it possibly is now, as its become a terrorist recruiting centre) You cannot guess/ lie/ invent things ....kill 2 million people , injure millions more , destableise the world, and then say they MIGHT have been a treat. I have heard some clever people say we invaded Iraq because they DIDNT have WOMD.....which makes sense. Bush & bLiar are war criminals . They never took that nurse back on , by the way, i saw her make a speech in Manchester the other week. The same day i saw one of my heroes, Tony Benn
-
Tony benn The best leader we never had
look at john bolton and des browns faces( who is des brown ? i hear you ask
) On thatcher
great man Arms sales to Iraq These things go back decades and the US and UK crop up time and time again
-
moggy:
the world, and then say they MIGHT have been a treat. I have heard some clever people say we invaded Iraq because they DIDNT have WOMD.....which makes sense. Bush & bLiar are war criminals .
Well if Saddam, Iraq had WMD, I guess he would have used them in the battle, am I stupid or right? Or against any certain goal, a country they would hate or so. Actually now if there's some rumours about a country having WMD, the best thing to do for that country is say "Yes, we have them", then the rest leave them alone, of course. Not a good place to invade, you know...
:
-
21st Century Paul:
moggy:
the world, and then say they MIGHT have been a treat. I have heard some clever people say we invaded Iraq because they DIDNT have WOMD.....which makes sense. Bush & bLiar are war criminals .
Well if Saddam, Iraq had WMD, I guess he would have used them in the battle, am I stupid or right? Or against any certain goal, a country they would hate or so. Actually now if there's some rumours about a country having WMD, the best thing to do for that country is say "Yes, we have them", then the rest leave them alone, of course. Not a good place to invade, you know...
:
You are right.....and we knew that before we invaded. By the way i will name three countries who have loads of WOMD ....US , UK and Isreal. Our double standards are breathtaking More truth and common sense from Mr Benn....the truth behind Afganistan and Iraq
Robin Cook on arms to Iraq Part 1 of 3 This by the way was before bLiar became a war criminal If you read into things, it is clear that our foreign policy over the decades is the reason for most terrorism. This is not to excuse it ....but what pain ,anguish and frustration must a person go through to strap a bomb to themselves and blow up innocent people ? -
moggy:
They never took that nurse back on , by the way, i saw her make a speech in Manchester the other week. The same day i saw one of my heroes, Tony Benn
( trouble being his son is one of the ' new 'labour muppets.)I'm sorry to hear that
I applaud your efforts. I know it meant alot to you. Sometimes you have to stand up for a cause even when you know most likely you may loose, because the next time it happens they can't make a case that this was an isolated incident. I'm sure she is extremely grateful for your support. It was a good thing you did
In relation to Bush, Moggy I support all our Presidents - to a point. What we as civilians hear regarding intelligence reports pales in comparison to what they are privy too. No one administration or person is perfect. We are all human beings trying to do our best not just for our own country but for the world in general. People make mistakes. President Elect Obama will make his fair share too
But not one administration is totally responsible for the unfolding of events nor can they take credit for good times either. Everything is so intrically woven and we are a product of our history... good, bad or indifferent. I no longer buy into one side's political propaganda. I research it myself and draw my own conclusions and thanks to the net I can get actual video to remind me of what I heard - way back when! I never use to be this way, and I learned the hard way
Once again Moggy I applaud your support for the Nurse. And I hope life treats her well
-
Thanks for your interest
It isnt over with yet http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=2028 I notice the New Labour mp i mentioned earlier is involved ....so there is hope after all
l John McDonnell, for PM
-
[quote="moggy"]
21st Century Paul:
You are right.....and we knew that before we invaded. By the way i will name three countries who have loads of WOMD ....US , UK and Isreal.
well, of course, though Israel is not a official thing. Well, once one country "joins the club" (becomes a nuclear power) things are different. Think North Korea... it's such a dictatorial regime, etc but if they say they have nuclear weapons, then they're "into the club" too. We can't be naive, the security council of the UN are just the 5 countries with more nuclear weapons... it never has mattered if they are a democracy, dictatorial, capitalist, communist... it's just the atom bomb, And I'm glad that is that way... at least you know there's not gonna be war between that countries...
-
I always listen to the Craig Charles funk and soul show on a Saturday, and he opened with Kokolo - Vote Black President ....excellent funky tune . You can listen again (tomorrow ) on here http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/funk_soul/ He plays some excellent stuff
-
FACTBOX-U.S. stocks in presidential election weeks Fri Nov 7, 2008 10:27pm GMT NEW YORK, Nov 7 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks broke out of their post-election funk on Friday, but on balance, the market hardly delivered a ringing endorsement of Barack Obama's defeat of John McCain to be elected 44th president of the United States. Whatever the reason, since Election Day, major U.S. indexes are down more than 7 percent. For the Dow Jones industrial average .DJI and Standard & Poor's 500 .SPX, that represents the worst ever conclusion to the week of a presidential election. complete article with stats: http://uk.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idUKN0748885920081107