|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:50 am
In the recent months people have been speculating about if weather or not Micheal Bloomberg[I named his name wrong i think.] is going to run for president in the 2008 election. like if the 8 Democrats and 10 Republicans were not enough. anywho, with the latest news of him leaving the Republican party to become an independant, even more speculation has risen. But i mean this man has gone from Being a Democrat, To a Republican, to now an independant, what can he not choose? I want to hear your opinions about the matter[especially if you live in New York like i do] please vioce your opinions.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:54 am
I don't know enough about him to defend him or anything but from what I understand he was a democrat but he had no chance in the primary for the mayor candidate and so that's why he went to the republicans. I've known people who have changed their mind about parties. My mom used to be a republican but now she isn't affiliated with anyone. At least Mr. Bloomberg (I think you spelt his name right) has common sense to leave a horrible party. I'm into at least giving him a look at even though I probably won't vote for him more than likely. We need more political parties in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:37 am
Well i mean i wouldn't mind Him running if there wasnt about 19 or so people already running, i mean thats just outragous. but you are right at least he left a horrible party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:28 pm
Well to be fair Bloomberg hasn't officially said anything either way. He might not even run for all we know and I think there are eighteen official candidates since Thompson hasn't officially declared yet and Wesley Clark on the democratic side is still thinking about it and Al Gore is sending so many weird signals I've given up trying to figure it out. And hey it's democracy. I'm just glad it's not nineteen people on one party side. wink On edit Thompson is supposed to jump in on July 4th (pandering much?) so it'll be nineteen than and if Bloomberg jumps in it'll be twenty if he gets any coverage and I'm hearing rumors that Ralph Nader is thinking of running too (what's an election without him?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:10 pm
*shrug*
I'm voting for Obama, because he's the most honest candidate out there, and he seems like he'd actually get things done.
Crow, as to needing political parties... what we need isn't more political parties, but instead, a turn of focus away from parties and party lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:29 pm
CrowNotAngelGRL Well to be fair Bloomberg hasn't officially said anything either way. He might not even run for all we know and I think there are eighteen official candidates since Thompson hasn't officially declared yet and Wesley Clark on the democratic side is still thinking about it and Al Gore is sending so many weird signals I've given up trying to figure it out. And hey it's democracy. I'm just glad it's not nineteen people on one party side. wink On edit Thompson is supposed to jump in on July 4th (pandering much?) so it'll be nineteen than and if Bloomberg jumps in it'll be twenty if he gets any coverage and I'm hearing rumors that Ralph Nader is thinking of running too (what's an election without him?). true, u cant have one w/o nader. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:13 am
the only good thing about Bloomberg flying all over the political spectrum is he isnt a diehard either way....I do like his record about protecting abortion rights, gun control, and gay rights. thus in a parallel dimension where he was a top runner he could possible have had my vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:59 am
Why do people(the people with some marxist theoretical understanding of the state) vote for bourgeois politicians?
Mere, you say Obama will get things done, then what? open the revolution? nationalise all industry in the hands of democratic workers controle?
Really? He won't do any of those you say?
Oh, well, then.... Why vote for such skum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:34 pm
Gracchvs Why do people(the people with some marxist theoretical understanding of the state) vote for bourgeois politicians? Mere, you say Obama will get things done, then what? open the revolution? nationalise all industry in the hands of democratic workers controle? Really? He won't do any of those you say? Oh, well, then.... Why vote for such skum? I vote for the candidate that I think will screw me over the least. What I think that Obama will do would be to focus his efforts during his tenure on creating programs tailored specifically to fight poverty. He'll focus on issues such as healthcare, social security, etc., not as a politician, but as someone who has lived in the real world. He's better than any of the other candidates because he isn't corrupt, and when he entered the political system, he did so with the intent to change it. It would be my hope that these changes would pave the way for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:03 pm
I prefer either Obama or Edwards.
Though I rather work more on the voting system in the US. The two-party thing doesn't work in anyone's favor but the corporations and wealthy candidates, as they're the only entities capable of financing national elections.
For a while, the Republicans, lead by Karl Rove were more or less set on a century of Republican party rule. Essentially borrowing the tactics of the Communists and Nazi parties in state take over.
With good reason, they grounded themselves in mindless populist issues, hell-bent on blaming the "liberal elite" for their ills. If that s**t ever goes down in the US, it will be from the Right and it will not be pretty. -.-
Frankly, I think nationalizing industries this late in the game is a bad idea for the US. Quite a few of our industries are already narrowed into a handful of corporate elites. They'd just get even more political sway than they already have.
I'm kind of favoring cooperatives more at the moment. I suppose there's something more union-like about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Gracchvs Why do people(the people with some marxist theoretical understanding of the state) vote for bourgeois politicians? Mere, you say Obama will get things done, then what? open the revolution? nationalise all industry in the hands of democratic workers controle? Really? He won't do any of those you say? Oh, well, then.... Why vote for such skum? see here in lies the problem, if all we have is scum to choose from, then what is the point?, im not saying vote for bloomberg or anything, just want to hear peoples opinions on the fact that yet another person might be running for president. i mean is there something im missing about why its so important to run in 2008? i dont agree with any of them being put in office, but in this two party system, what other choice is there? either get one that will make things worse or get one that promises things and just never does them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:06 pm
Quote: see here in lies the problem, if all we have is scum to choose from, then what is the point? eactly. They are all skum, so ingore bourgeois politics if there are no decent candidates. What you have to look for is not someone who isn't corrupt, as it is safe to assume that in practice all they're politics will be the same. It isn't enough to look for who will make better poor releif programes and who grew up in the shitty part of town, no! What is needed is a clear look at what class they back. Dems, Reps, Greens, they are all bougeois. There are some speudo-trotskyist parties that I would give critical support to, but that is a whole other topic. In the end, when you vote for either of the main parties, and when you complain about the two-party system what you are doing is voting for a capitalist candidate and complaining about the form oof bourgeois dictatorship. Would you prefer it if you had a proportional system like in germany? Even more important, apart from getting one member of your favourite party into one of the houses, what would be the point? What would change? Nothing! The only way to change things is by relying on the revolutionary working class to smash the bourgeois state. Again, read State and Revolution and The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:08 pm
In our country, sir, for a political party to be allowed federal funding, they have to capture 5% of the national vote in the presidential election. Only the Republicans and Democrats are on the ballot in every state. Unless our country adopts instant-run off voting... which is unlike because it would threaten the two dominate parties... the only other way for a third party to creep in is by replacing one of the two.
What that calls for is not mindless dogmatic idealism, but a voting strategy. Keep the least annoying party in power (Democrats) while in states where Democrats are guaranteed, voting in the more left-wing party. Greens probably have the best chance right now, but whatever. The United States won't move left politically unless the dominate parties themselves move left. If you don't understand this, you're severely underestimating the sheep-herding abilities of our candidates.
And our "bourgeois state" is the one freaking superpower of the world. We spend more on military alone than anyone else. HOW do you propose a revolution lead by the proletariat... who aren't allowed to own assault weapons... going to take over the United States government? A dose of realism wouldn't kill ya, ya know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:11 pm
Demon Kagerou Frankly, I think nationalizing industries this late in the game is a bad idea for the US. Quite a few of our industries are already narrowed into a handful of corporate elites. They'd just get even more political sway than they already have. I'm kind of favoring cooperatives more at the moment. I suppose there's something more union-like about them. HOW do you propose a revolution lead by the proletariat... who aren't allowed to own assault weapons... going to take over the United States government? A dose of realism wouldn't kill ya, ya know. Be still, a girl after my own heart heart I totally agree on nationization. Becuase the mid level bougeise have the mangerial and techinal knowledge of how industry is run their postion is in no way threatened by nationalization. Sure they get pay cuts, but they are still the bosses and the cream of the new state-bureucratic soceity. If this communism thing you all go on about so much is ever going to bring about the shiney egaltarian promises you all suggest you should all avoid the Soviet model of economic planning like the plauge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:51 pm
Demon Kagerou I prefer either Obama or Edwards. Though I rather work more on the voting system in the US. The two-party thing doesn't work in anyone's favor but the corporations and wealthy candidates, as they're the only entities capable of financing national elections. For a while, the Republicans, lead by Karl Rove were more or less set on a century of Republican party rule. Essentially borrowing the tactics of the Communists and Nazi parties in state take over. With good reason, they grounded themselves in mindless populist issues, hell-bent on blaming the "liberal elite" for their ills. If that s**t ever goes down in the US, it will be from the Right and it will not be pretty. -.- Frankly, I think nationalizing industries this late in the game is a bad idea for the US. Quite a few of our industries are already narrowed into a handful of corporate elites. They'd just get even more political sway than they already have. I'm kind of favoring cooperatives more at the moment. I suppose there's something more union-like about them. Edwards? Every time I see him it brings up a song from Coldplay called, "Clocks" a section says, "I'm a cure or am I the disease?" You get my message, his health care reform is as hypocritical from the taxes of 2001 when he did not pay extra when he had the chance to. As the Demmies take over they to will fall on there a** as time goes on, and be just as bad. Root now and cheer, but they will take more control and be a head party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
