Hillary Going For Broke

[babe]

Man, what a disgustingly horrible person she is.

Hillary or Flick??? Flick is a caricature composite of all the evils a politically ambitious person can have, I think. . . .

Human Beings are generally mixtures of good and evil, and in most cases have more good than evil. Not my point here to hate Hillary.

She is obviously intelligent, and very aware of self-interest. . . . and could be capable of a high level of professional service as a politician or statesman. The question therefore devolves into a discussion of what has gone wrong. I expect that some might wish to "push back" on the negatives to point out some things that haven't gone wrong or even maybe are right with her.

In another thread I discussed "sociopathy" in general. I am not sure it should really be viewed as a psychiatric "disease" and have a place in the professional handbook as a diagnosis. I think it is way too common for that, but more importantly, is essentially a choice of operating parameters people can either discard, replace, or modify somehow if they just want to.

Politicians could "just say no" to influence, money, party, and any other factor in the political equation, and just do what is right for us judged by some principle or another.

 

[babe]

I'm going to vote for the person who says that "god" called them to run. Whether its Bush, Romney, or Newt, just having that inspiration makes the difference to me...

One of several funny comments in here, showing some sort of frustration with others but being laughed at, I think. Laughter is essential to human sanity. If we can't laugh, we are not in a frame of mind that can be resilient enough to stay healthy.

I find laughing at myself is the best medicine. . . . .

 

[babe]

And whoever rejects intellectual nonsense. We don't need any more libtard eggheads from Ivy League schools who think that they know everything.

Were Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Al Jefferson highly educated intellectuals? Hell no! That's what we rejected! Freaking talk talk talk do nothing liberals in Great Britain. But what we lacked in intellect and material goods, we made up for in courage, moral superiority, and hard work.

I'll take someone like Michelle Bachmann any day over some smart egghead.

Well, "Al Jefferson"? Funny how "Althis" or "Althat" persists in this forum. . . Alfense does have a lot of value as a coping mechanism for Jazz fans.

JFK while hosting the contemporary crop of Nobel laureates told them he was proud to host the greatest assembly of intellect, civic, art, and science talents that had ever dined at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

Our founders were generally from a prosperous family which provided their children home tutors with an emphasis on classical education.. . . including Greek and Latin and reading in the Roman and Grecian histories which began with ideas of human rights and liberties and solid values, and which went wrong in prosperous times when people departed from those values. They tried to address the reasons why those civilizations failed, by building in some mechanisms meant to balance power and prevent corruption and concentration of power in the hands of anyone. . . . .

 

[babe]

We really do need more 3rd parties, and Independents to run.

Also, if the right would swing more to the Libertarian side, and away from the Tea Party they would be going in a good direction.

The problem with "Parties" is partisanship displaces statesmanship and other forms of intelligent action. . . .

The problem with the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic Party, today. . . . is the inordinate "ownership" of both by cartel, which is to say fascist, interests. Rhetoric is just that. . . . a sort of false flag designed to split the people and keep the levers of power in the hands of the "interests".

 

[babe]

We really do need more 3rd parties, and Independents to run.

Also, if the right would swing more to the Libertarian side, and away from the Tea Party they would be going in a good direction.

I can see the "libertarian" side as being more of a movement for human rights and based on principle. . . . and maybe in your view the "Tea Party" is a knee-jerk ideological camp with fantasies about "patriotism" and maybe even the Constitution.

Not much we can really do about people's stupidity, and there's a lot of it to go around. I think the attempt to raise the discussion to a higher level is worth the effort, and it takes some willingness to respect others to do that. A lot of "liberals" have good reasons for believing what they do, I just think the presence of some big players. . . "500 pound gorillas" . . . .has effectively co-opted our political process, and turned it into some pretty ignorant uses.

We have been cut out of the deal, and that is the fundamental problem. Therefore, the fundamental solution is to restore our importance, and our capacity to control our destiny.

 

[LogGrad98]

I can see the "libertarian" side as being more of a movement for human rights and based on principle. . . . and maybe in your view the "Tea Party" is a knee-jerk ideological camp with fantasies about "patriotism" and maybe even the Constitution.

Not much we can really do about people's stupidity, and there's a lot of it to go around. I think the attempt to raise the discussion to a higher level is worth the effort, and it takes some willingness to respect others to do that. A lot of "liberals" have good reasons for believing what they do, I just think the presence of some big players. . . "500 pound gorillas" . . . .has effectively co-opted our political process, and turned it into some pretty ignorant uses.

We have been cut out of the deal, and that is the fundamental problem. Therefore, the fundamental solution is to restore our importance, and our capacity to control our destiny.

It's our most abundant natural resource.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I really don't think the fact that American democracy sows "choice" to the extent that......from 1989 to potentially 2025 our presidential office could be held by the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Obama should bother anybody.

 

[babe]

I really don't think the fact that American democracy sows "choice" to the extent that......from 1989 to potentially 2025 our presidential office could be held by the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Obama should bother anybody.

American Democracy????

The Bush family dynasty can be tracked back to before the American Revolution as British-aligned opium merchants. Mitt Romney was a Bush dynasty "stand-in", probably meant to lose. The Clintons are solid Rockefeller assets from their toe-in-door days in Arkansas under Arkansas' Governor Rockefeller. The Bush "Dynasty" has always been aligned with same overseers that the Rockefellers have served. British interests, as set up and manipulated on the world stage by essentially British "royalty" or elites or banking interests, via the laughably "US" Council on Foreign Relations.

Obama, though a supposed marxist ideologue according to his own fantasies, is essentially a "plantation manager" for the same "higher" interests.

The fact underlying all this is that "American Democracy" has been hijacked by largely "British" interests. . . . the same interests that ruled the British Empire under a powerless manipulated King George in the 1770s/ / /

Even Ronald Reagan was effectively "managed" in part through the selection of his running mate and a clear signal shot in the head.

The basic problem in American as well as world politics has always been the question of human rights, human dignity for the ruled underclasses. The basic "management" strategy has always been "divide and conquer", splitting the people into manipulable groups and pitting them one against another in the context of effective "strings" enabling "higher" control.

 

[ema]

I really don't think the fact that American democracy sows "choice" to the extent that......from 1989 to potentially 2025 our presidential office could be held by the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Obama should bother anybody.

Exactly, so much for democracy. It bothers even me.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Exactly, so much for democracy. It bothers even me.

We aren't a Democracy. Why do people keep calling us one? We aren't.

 

[ema]

We aren't a Democracy. Why do people keep calling us one? We aren't.

Lol, tell that to the people you carry Democracy to.

 

[babe]

We aren't a Democracy. Why do people keep calling us one? We aren't.

Those who look to the founding principles of this nation might want to call it a "Constitutional Republic" or "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

Practical "progressives" today clearly believe they hold a superior wisdom for the planet that justifies totalitarian governance. While there is a wild sort of variance within that camp that includes everything from ideological marxists through various brands of socialism all the way to cartelist principles that could be described as government of the money, by the money, and for the money. . . . they all actually believe they possess some superior wisdom that justifies an "in-crowd" of social, financial or intellectual elites of essentially a statist or fascist world view just taking the helm of planet earth. This is the underlying "wisdom" of "global governance".

The elite "media" cartelists package this and propagandize it as "democracy", and a lot of people believe it.

The UN does not have elected officials who represent the actual "people".