- Joined
- Feb 29, 2012
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 301
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Are you kidding? Hillary is far right. She's a warmonger, corporatist, fascist, and her husband passed DOMA into law. She seriously couldn't be further from socialist ideals, or liberal ideals for that matter.
Ehhh.. Newsflash 95% of politicians in the US are corporatists.
Are they fascists tho? No.
However she is more liberal than all 3 of those candidates
In what ways are Hilary Clinton a fascist?Duh.
Not all of them, Hillary is though.
She is "liberal" (in the modern American since o the world) when it comes to gay rights, reducing sentences for drugs, fighting income inequality, universal healthcare, McCain Feingold Act, getting rid of electroal college, pro Roe v Wade, more pro green energy and believes in climate change...She has a "D" next to her name, that's about as liberal as she gets.
In what ways are Hilary Clinton a fascist?
She is "liberal" (in the modern American since o the world) when it comes to gay rights,
reducing sentences for drugs
fighting income inequality
Pretty sure she doenst believe in totalitarianism. Dont think she thinks everything should be in service of the state...In what ways is she not?
She is for gay marriage and gay rights NOW.Her husband signed DOMA into law with her full support.
Its a start.Reducing sentences on drugs is still fueling a victimless crime which is, arguably, not liberal at all.
She supports increasing taxes on the rich.Her policies create larger gaps in income equality. Supporting corporatism and cronyism kind of negates all that income equality rhetoric she spews.
Most liberals are about that. She is not a neocon. Just because she voted for the war that does not make her a neocon. Notice how im not saying she is "great". Im saying she is the most liberal out of those people listed and i would vote for her if it was those 3 candidates.What about foreign policy? She's a neocon. Liberals are pro-peace and against unnecessary military intervention. She'd be a Bush 3.0(Obama is 2.0)
Why?She is for gay marriage and gay rights NOW.
Why?
Why did she change?
Because it was expedient. She has no principles. She simply checks the polls and pretends to agree with the majority.
Pshhh. Because she is a political actor. Thats why. When the vast majority of your voting bloc moves to favor a policy you move with that bloc.
So you admit she has no principles?
To say that someone has no principles is a pretty bold statement.
You just admitted that she shifts her view with her voting block, and that she's just a political actor. That's called having no principles.
Because in Ron Paul's universe, we don't need to operate in the rest of the world for anything. Trade agreements, military agreements, flight agreement...nothing. We've got everything we need right here.
It would be sad day indeed if America found itself having to depend on it's own resources. It is our privilege, nay, destiny to take from other's to quench our needs. The rest of the world will just have to understand. We are Americans.
I remember Ron Paul getting boo'd at the debates for telling the GOP audience some sad truths they could not accept. That took courage even if it fell on deaf ears. I think Ron Paul does have some baggage that's hard to get around. It would make for media fodder and endless and useless debate.
Not sure he could deliver the whole package to unite a GOP base. He's way too honest. I wouldn't recommend running him but I would vote for him over Hillary.
Local economies can be stable, but it's international trade that tends to result in the thriving of economies and cultures. It has its pitfalls to be sure, but completely insulated economies (and again, cultures) are stagnant.
You just admitted that she shifts her view with her voting block, and that she's just a political actor. That's called having no principles.
Local economies can be stable, but it's international trade that tends to result in the thriving of economies and cultures. It has its pitfalls to be sure, but completely insulated economies (and again, cultures) are stagnant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?