2008 US Debates & Election

[henk4]

i studied a lot of comparitive politics, so i actually learned more about european and asian systems than my own. i ended up studying Latin America more than any other region, and I was an expert on 1960s Chile.

So was getting rid of Allende a necessity?

[cmcpokey]

in my eyes, no. i am very pro-allende, and anti 1960s CIA.

[henk4]

in my eyes, no. i am very pro-allende, and anti 1960s CIA.

Very good to hear.

[f6fhellcat13]

in my eyes, no. i am very pro-allende, and anti 1960s CIA.

I don't think many people, after they hear of many of the CIA's doings, would be big fans of their conduct, especially during that era.

[cmcpokey]

Very good to hear.

i think that was a very low point in our nations history. there was a widespread fear of communism, and it was a destroy at all costs mentality. it is a mentality that is still present in the mids of today's americans. mainly the older crowd, but still current voters. and you can see this with McCains subtle allegations that Obama is a Socialist. Using this to scare people away from voting for him.

Allende was a popular, yet divisive figure in south american politics. he was working to fix chile's economy but was so sabotaged by the US and other major econic partners in the pockets of the US that he was unable to get anywhere. like trying to swim up a waterfall. i think he had good ideas, and could have done amazing things with a country i have a lot of respect for. he does still have the distinction of being the only popularly elected communist in the western hemisphere.

[f6fhellcat13]

McCain suggested that if you like universal healthcare you are an unAmerican(implied) commie/socialist and should move to Canada or UK. I couldn't tell how tongue-in-cheek this remark was.

v Indeed. v

i think that was a very low point in our nations history. there was a widespread fear of communism, and it was a destroy at all costs mentality. it is a mentality that is still present in the mids of today's americans. mainly the older crowd, but still current voters. and you can see this with McCains subtle allegations that Obama is a Socialist. Using this to scare people away from voting for him.

Allende was a popular, yet divisive figure in south american politics. he was working to fix chile's economy but was so sabotaged by the US and other major econic partners in the pockets of the US that he was unable to get anywhere. like trying to swim up a waterfall. i think he had good ideas, and could have done amazing things with a country i have a lot of respect for. he does still have the distinction of being the only popularly elected communist in the western hemisphere.

I cannot say I know much about Allende, I have not taken a S. American history class, and he gets lost in all of the Marxism of that era, for me at least. The containment policy was so stupid in practise, if logical on paper.

[henk4]

i think that was a very low point in our nations history. there was a widespread fear of communism, and it was a destroy at all costs mentality. it is a mentality that is still present in the mids of today's americans. mainly the older crowd, but still current voters. and you can see this with McCains subtle allegations that Obama is a Socialist. Using this to scare people away from voting for him.

Allende was a popular, yet divisive figure in south american politics. he was working to fix chile's economy but was so sabotaged by the US and other major econic partners in the pockets of the US that he was unable to get anywhere. like trying to swim up a waterfall. i think he had good ideas, and could have done amazing things with a country i have a lot of respect for. he does still have the distinction of being the only popularly elected communist in the western hemisphere.

I don't think Allende was a communist, but more of a socialist. And I also know these words have a far more extreme connotation in the USA than they have over here. (I have been a member of our socialist party since 1974)
Using the word Socialism in (some parts of) the USA is a certain guarantee to get people in the curtains, and this is what the McCain campaign is apparently speculating upon.

[f6fhellcat13]

Unfortunalty, for some; a socialist is a communist is an evil dictator.
Others beleive that they are merely harmless hippies.

[henk4]

Unfortunalty, for some; a socialist is a communist is an evil dictator.
Others beleive that they are merely harmless hippies.

I recognise myself in both of these qualifications

[f6fhellcat13]

An evil-harmless-dictator hippie?
Candidates reluctant to release medical records.
I was unaware that Biden had health problems because all the focus on health has been centerd around McCain. But as he is a VP, like Cheney, he can get away with bad health. :|

[nota]

Allende was a popular, yet divisive figure in south american politics.

he does still have the distinction of being the only popularly elected communist in the western hemisphere.

Meet Rhodes Scholar & twice democratically-elected Communist Fred Paterson

In 1939 Townsville elected Australia's first Communist alderman. Five years later, Bowen elected not only Australia's first but also the British Empire's first, Communist state government member. Of the five electorates the Australian Communist Party contested in the 1944 Queensland State elections, in none did the Party's candidate receive less than twenty per-cent of the formal vote.

Fred Paterson died in 1977, after a lifetime of devotion to the Communist Party. In an interview in the mid-1970s, he said, "As an ardent communist I have been motivated by a much higher and more noble vision: the vision of a world where ... the fear of want is banished and the law of the forest is at last no more".

[cmcpokey]

I don't think Allende was a communist, but more of a socialist. And I also know these words have a far more extreme connotation in the USA than they have over here. (I have been a member of our socialist party since 1974)
Using the word Socialism in (some parts of) the USA is a certain guarantee to get people in the curtains, and this is what the McCain campaign is apparently speculating upon.

Allende wasn't a true believer in communism, but he did run on the communist ticket, and received some support from Moscow and Havana

Meet Rhodes Scholar & twice democratically-elected Communist Fred Paterson

I guess I should have specified communist head or state.

[MRR]

i wouldn't criticize anyone for choosing a candidate based on them agreeing with your principles, politics, or for specific programs. and to a lesser extent i wouldnt criticize someone for voting for the candidate that is the representative of the party they are members of, even if they don't particularly like that candidate.

the people, especially us young people (and the college age ones most of all) that call themselves democrats and have no idea what that means, or republicans and not know what principles the party was founded upon; those are who really get me angry. at least know where your candidate stands on the issues, or better, know what the issues are.

my single biggest peeve though, is that thinking that by voting for a fringe candidate you are somehow speaking your mind out against the 2 party system and will have your voice heard. that is false. 100% false. in the 2000 election the left was spilt between gore and nader. had nader not run, a majority of those votes would have fallen on gore, and it would have more than sealed the deal for him. conversely, in the 1992 election ross perot stol a large percentage of votes on the right, and lost the election for H.W. Bush. so what does that all mean? in our system, if you spit the votes on either the left or the right, that side will lose, and you will not have a representative in office for the majority.

example loosely based on the 2000 election:
you have 51% of the country on the left
you have 49% on the right.
there is a fringe candidate on the left (Nader) who takes 3%
the democrat gets 48% and the one on the right get the plurality
the minority rules.

that is called Duverger's law

Nadar stood for a completely different type of left wing movement compared to a more moderate Gore (in much the same way Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan represented a different type of "right" than George HW Bush and Bob Dole). You are oversimplifying things by calling groups of people just "right" and "left" and claiming that the minority right or left gains a control over the majority opposite when a relatively significant portion of the population shifts the balance by voting for a Nadar like candidate. Right and left can mean many different things (paleoconservative, neocon, libertarian, socialist, green, etc).

When neither of the candidates even come close to my personal political views I consider it my duty to vote for someone who are more aligned with my beliefs. For the first time since I can remember if you vote either democrat or republican you get bigger government. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

[cmcpokey]

Nadar stood for a completely different type of left wing movement compared to a more moderate Gore (in much the same way Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan represented a different type of "right" than George HW Bush and Bob Dole). You are oversimplifying things by calling groups of people just "right" and "left" and claiming that the minority right or left gains a control over the majority opposite when a relatively significant portion of the population shifts the balance by voting for a Nadar like candidate. Right and left can mean many different things (paleoconservative, neocon, libertarian, socialist, green, etc).

When neither of the candidates even come close to my personal political views I consider it my duty to vote for someone who are more aligned with my beliefs. For the first time since I can remember if you vote either democrat or republican you get bigger government. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

and thats why bush has been in office for 8 years.

I'm not saying that you dont have somewhat of a point, you do. However, if there is a significant enough group of fringe candidates, the minority will rule. so instead of having someone that is still not what you want, but closer to what you believe, you get someone on the opposite side of the spectrum for you.

so as all as i'm saying, that if you want a republican in office for 4+ more years, vote for nader. a vote for nader is a vote for a republican. if you can live with voting for mccain, then go for it.

[henk4]

When neither of the candidates even come close to my personal political views I consider it my duty to vote for someone who are more aligned with my beliefs. For the first time since I can remember if you vote either democrat or republican you get bigger government. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

the current crisis shows clearly that the USA cannot do without a Government, whether you like it or not. And now that the mess is complete you only need more of that.....I presume you are a fan of Reagan's famous words....