Hilary Clinton

[Des]

do you think she'll stand in 2008 for election?

apparantly shes the leading contender to go for it...

[resisting arrest with violence]

God help us if she does run. Here is a ***** who was a fanatical supporter of the Contras during the Reagan years!

[KC]

Better than a repuke.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Yeah she'll stand. And she's a good bet to be the first female President too. She may not be perfect but, hey, this is American politics.

[Che NJ]

She's such a sellout, she's trying to get on everybody's good side, but i don't think it's going to work. I don't think the country's ready to vote for a female president anyways.

[fernando]

God help us if she does run. Here is a ***** who was a fanatical supporter of the Contras during the Reagan years!
Doesnt matter who you pick as a president of the US, all of them want puppet governments in Latin America...its in the Yankee's nature.


Yeah she'll stand. And she's a good bet to be the first female President too. She may not be perfect but, hey, this is American politics.
Nobody is perfect to become president I guess, but perfection isnt something that reflects the normal people. I dont know for some reason I always liked the Clintons eventhough I dont agree with their ideology.


She's such a sellout, she's trying to get on everybody's good side, but i don't think it's going to work. I don't think the country's ready to vote for a female president anyways.
Isnt that what politics is all about? Selling out and trying to be on everybody's good side?

[resisting arrest with violence]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:19 PM

God help us if she does run. Here is a ***** who was a fanatical supporter of the Contras during the Reagan years!
Doesnt matter who you pick as a president of the US, all of them want puppet governments in Latin America...its in the Yankee's nature.


Yeah she'll stand. And she's a good bet to be the first female President too. She may not be perfect but, hey, this is American politics.
Nobody is perfect to become president I guess, but perfection isnt something that reflects the normal people. I dont know for some reason I always liked the Clintons eventhough I dont agree with their ideology.


She's such a sellout, she's trying to get on everybody's good side, but i don't think it's going to work. I don't think the country's ready to vote for a female president anyways.
Isnt that what politics is all about? Selling out and trying to be on everybody's good side?
Not if Ralph Nader was elected. You think Nader wants puppet governments in Latin America? You're crazy.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think shes better than a republican but not as good as nader is.

[Commie Girl]

Can someone give some insight into why the U$ is one of the few "western" countries that has not elected a woman as president/prime minister?

[bolshevik butcher]

Could it be the huge religous and conservative influence there? And britan hasnt elected a real female prime minister :P

[Commie Girl]

Must be more than that....That ***** Margaret Thatcher was a conservative, as was Kim Campbell.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, however there wasnt the huge relgous influence. Also thactcher was economically conservative but she wanst anti-womans rights as sch.

[fernando]

Not if Ralph Nader was elected. You think Nader wants puppet governments in Latin America? You're crazy.
Wasnt he that "third party" guy? Lets be realistic here, have you ever seen a government in the US who actually did something "different" Each government is there to protect the interests of the elites. Ralph Nadar would be forced to do the same or they will just make sure he has to leave :unsure:

[bolshevik butcher]

Hes never gonna get elected, he doesnt get enough funding to really get his message out.

[D_Bokk]

I hope she doesn't run, because people will vote for her because they liked her husband - not because of what she stands for. Not to mention she wants to further censor video games because she thinks that's what is corrupting the children. Capitalism is corrupting the children.

I would like to see John McCain elected. Based on his defense of the people against corporations when it came to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, he seems to be the closest thing to a Communist that the Congress has. Oddly enough, he's a republican.

[fernando]

and still that guy will protect the interests of the small elite, dont you for a minute think that things change in the US against the will of the elites.

[Decolonize The Left]

Wasnt he that "third party" guy? Lets be realistic here, have you ever seen a government in the US who actually did something "different" Each government is there to protect the interests of the elites. Ralph Nadar would be forced to do the same or they will just make sure he has to leave

Each government is there to protect the elites, yes. But each government has been either Republican or Democrat. Therefore this makes sense.
Ralph Nader stands opposed to everything our system is right now, well almost everything. He is the best option anyone has to work towards a social democracy. If you don't believe me, go read the Green Party's website and see what they stand for. It's good stuff.

-- August

[fernando]

Ralph Nader stands opposed to everything our system is right now, well almost everything. He is the best option anyone has to work towards a social democracy. If you don't believe me, go read the Green Party's website and see what they stand for. It's good stuff.

Okay, lets assume that he would come to power, I dont know how but lets say he would come to power? Then what? Is he going to take over congress and the senate? Is he going to remove the entire powerstructure of democrats and republicans that already exists? Even if he did become president he could hardly do anything.

[Stormshield]

Naaah, seing as how the current president couldn't even start a war, some changes in the internal system must be impossible. ;)

[fernando]

It are the same elites who remain in true power, put Nader there and nothing will really change

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:55 PM
Naaah, seing as how the current president couldn't even start a war, some changes in the internal system must be impossible. ;)
However it was a collective effort that was in best interest of alot of people who voted for it. People had hidden reasons to vote for war, who has hidden reasons to equal the power structure?

[D_Bokk]

and still that guy will protect the interests of the small elite, dont you for a minute think that things change in the US against the will of the elites.
I don't think so. If you would be so kind as to point out exactly where McCain has taken the side of the rich elite over the people, it would be greatly appreciated. I personally haven't come across anything that groups him amongst all the other worthless politicians.

[fernando]

What great things does he "promise"?

[Decolonize The Left]

In a good situation, Nader could come to power, make changes in policy, and the people would see how much better these little changes are. It's just a start but you have to start somewhere and you're pessimistic attitudes won't get anything you want accomplished anytime soon.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

I agree, we do ahve to work with reformists sometimes, whil of course maintaning our diffrence. Strike together think apart.

[D_Bokk]

What great things does he "promise"?
In other words - you just said that because he's a Republican? He hasn't promised anything I know of, however he has repeatedly shown he is worthy of not supporting bills that allow Corporations to exploit the people.

[Free Palestine]

Did any of you see that AIPAC conference in Washington D.C., May 24th? Hillary got up there during her speech and said what amounts to "We will not end this war, we are here for Israel and it NEEDS to be expanded to Iran." Look up the transcript.

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:08 PM

What great things does he "promise"?
In other words - you just said that because he's a Republican?
I said it because he is a Yankee politicians, Republicans and Democrats are the same to me.


He hasn't promised anything I know of, however he has repeatedly shown he is worthy of not supporting bills that allow Corporations to exploit the people.
And then he will come to power...you think the people who have the money (hence have the real power) will allow him to endanger their interests?

[D_Bokk]

And then he will come to power...you think the people who have the money (hence have the real power) will allow him to endanger their interests?
I'm not saying he is going to change the US. All I am saying is that he has the interest of the people before the interests of corporations.

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:57 PM
do you think she'll stand in 2008 for election?

apparantly shes the leading contender to go for it...
No thanks.

The best Democratic women are women like Barbara Boxer and Cynthia McKinney. I'd rather see them run for President than Hillary.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I hope you realize she wont get in. Most americans arent very big fans of hillary clinton. After the whole clinton years everyone is a bit done with the clinton family. Also the dems are pussies they wont get into office.

[fernando]

Yeah having an affair is evil...sniffing coke and starting wars is okay. Yankees are amusing :lol:

[viva le revolution]

My faith in yank politics has long expired. It does not really matter who is in power, so long as america serves as the bastion of globalization and capitalism, the interests of the oligarchs will always reign supreme. keep in mind our struggle is not against the individual leaders themselves, but against the system in general. doesn't matter who is in power, bush, hillary or nader, america in general must be opposed for the system it propogates.

[Decolonize The Left]

Viva I agree, and I am glad you are concentrating on the whole pictue. But if you will not support the smaller changes, such as electing Nader, you will have to wait a long time for a larger change.

Every small change towards our goal makes the public more friendly to our cause. Should Nader be elected, the public would be much more receptive to a revolution and change of economy. To deny this is to make our goal harder to acheive.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

The eelction of nader would get soemthings and it would present a completley new, more progressive trend in thinking in the american public as well.

[Des]

nader didnt stand in all states sure he didnt?

what was his overall total? a few % ?

[bolshevik butcher]

It was only 1 or 2, he did better in 2000 i think.

[viva le revolution]

looks like wait longer if we wait for him to get elected :D

[bolshevik butcher]

LOL i already said i didnt think it was gonna happen!

[Decolonize The Left]

We shouldn't 'wait till he gets elected'. That would be ridiculous. We need to start getting the word out on a massive level so that people like Nader start to get more support. Every bit of support helps our cause, remember, we're gathering an army here. Not waiting for some luck to come our way. Nothing will happen unless we make it happen.

-- August

[viva le revolution]

I'm sorry comrade. i was only making a joke. I didn't mean to offend. You are right, at the moment militant action would be useless in the U.S and only demonise our cause furthur. What we need to do is educate. however one thing i do disagree with is counting support for liberals as support for our cause.

[Decolonize The Left]

Very well. I assume by liberals you mean democrats, and if this is so then you are correct. If by liberals you mean the left-leaning public (not to be confused with democrats, many of whom are practically centrists) then I disagree. I think we need to support them politically (i.e. the Green Party) in hope that they will make our current lives easier. While also educating the public as you so correctly suggested. Thank you.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, im with you on that. As i already said, think differently, strike together, we're fighting a common enemy, neo-conservatism, and they're the most progressive alternative.

[Xiao Banfa]

Hillary clinton is the wife of imperialist scum. She is in the spectrum of american politics.
This alone should tell you she will never be even a lesser evil or a strategic choice.
John Kerry, Bill Clinton- I hate them all. Remove yourself from their politicking.
DEPRIVE them of your fucking vote. Not that it means anything in the most imperialist state in the world.

Choose who you fight . The republicrats or the... oh sorry.


bugger.

[Decolonize The Left]

Tino I think you are confused. So far, most of us have been taking your side, that Republicans and Democrats are practically the same. But the Green Party is NOT the same. They ride very close to many issues which we, as communists/socialists/anarchists uphold as the way things should be. So if you want to make any change at all, vote Green. This way you will be voting, and therefore participating in democracy, and you'll also be helping your own cause.

-- August

[viva le revolution]

No comrade, i do not think that is a good thing.
Voting green will only muddle our own agenda. Let me give you an example of this. The Trotskyite movement of pakistan, with one of it's stalwarts manzoor ahmed claimed support for the PPP. Manzoor ahmed himself went to greet the chairman of the PPP asif ali zardari. The government arrested him and the PPP delegates. As na result, the corrupt PPP and the movement are viewed as one and the same. the larger issues of the PPP overshadow the trotskyite agenda and the communists are seen as just another offshoot of the mainstream party. collaboration with reformist parties only alienates our cause furthur. nothing can come out of relying on bourgeois democracy. Since the very nature of bourgeois democracy and the present voting system makes it naccessary to rely on capital and contributions from bourgeois institutions for any realistic chance of winning.
The greens should be supported but the communists and anarchists need to carry out education programs and activities by themselves without affiliation with any reformist party. Then only will the masses be truly understand our cause.
A degree of independance shouyld be maintained because reliance on reformist parties to carry on the struggle is pointless.

[Decolonize The Left]

"The greens should be supported but the communists and anarchists need to carry out education programs and activities by themselves without affiliation with any reformist party. Then only will the masses be truly understand our cause."
I agree with you completely. This is what I have been saying, perhaps I did not make myself clear.
I completely agree that as Communists/socialists/anarachists, we should make our own effort to educate the public. This is the only way to push OUR cause.
BUT, the green party should be supported INDIVIDUALLY by each of us when we vote. This should be done because if elected, they will make reformist changes that will ease the public into our ideas. It serves the same purpose as eduction. It will show the public through policy, that socialist ideas work, and help them.
This is not a call to ally ourselves with the green party by any means, and I apologize if that's what it sounded like. It means we should support their agenda, as in turn it helps ours.

-- August

[Capitalist Turkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:44 PM
he seems to be the closest thing to a Communist that the Congress has. Oddly enough, he's a republican.
I agree

[Camarada]

If alot of socialists and communists join the Democratic Party, perhaps we can move it more to the left.

[Decolonize The Left]

That is a necessity. We have to stop people from thinking Democrat means anything different than Republican. It doesn't.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

Im with whoever said we need education programmes. I not saying we should join the green party or whatever, but we should vote for them as the best alternative. Its foolish not to support the best alternative surley?

[Amusing Scrotum]

My perspective of American politics may be slightly flawed as I do not live in the "Belly of the Beast." So I apologise if my opinion is flawed.

From what I can see, an overwhelming majority of the American public is on the right. Therefore for now success for us lies in drawing these people further to the left. Getting Republicans to vote Democrat, Democrats to vote Green or Socialist.

It is my opinion that our only hope of revolution in America, lies in getting the American public to at least lean to the left. This in my opinion will be a harder task than the Revolution itself.

[Reds]

It would be nice if Dennis Kucinich became the democratic candidate.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yeah Kucinich had some good ideas...

Armchair you are correct. We need to pull the country to the left, and do so by showing the truth surrounding capitalist exploitation and oppression. Then the people will rise up on their own, and that will be the revolution we are looking for.

-- August

[Amusing Scrotum]

Well put August. Educating people over a prolonged period of time, seems to me, to be the most logical thing to do.

However sometimes. I get the feeling, that alot of people on this board think it would only take a few revolutionaries to defeat capitalism and rise the masses.

Its as if they've looked at the Cuban Revolution and applied it everywhere.

This seems both a daft and hot-headed to me.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well all you have to do is look at what would happen if they fail. The revolution would be doomed to failure. If they fail, the rest of the people behind them will be imprisoned and the movement will receive such a blowback, that it might not ever happen.

This is too much to risk, simply for some people who want to be heroes.

-- August

[Amusing Scrotum]

Which does not mean that some misguided soles won't try it; and by carrying out such hasty actions, they could, as you say set the revolution back a considerable amount of time.

[BitchBrew]

Well, the real intresting scenario would be if alongside with Hilary running for the Democrats, Colonysa Wrighes (sorry for the spelling) would to run for the Republicans. Either way America will have it's first female president, and perhaps in the same tim the first BLACK!

The questin then remains, how man democrats will vote for the republicans because they wich to se a black women as president? And how man republicans will vote for the Democrats to avoid voting for a negro?
:D :o

Intrestin scenario indeed....

[Decolonize The Left]

It is an interesting scenario, despite your numerous spelling errors...

I'll just give you this one: Condoleeza Rice.

Anyway, yes I think this would be very interesting indeed. Although I certainly don't see this happening, as Rice prefers to remain in back politics and gain her power there. I think if this was to happen, you wouldn't see democrats voting for Rice simply because she is black. She is also a disgusting neo-conservative, and one of the most vivid supporters of Cheney's "fuck-all we're American" politics.
As for republicans voting for Clinton, I'm sure this would occur on some level as there are many racist bigots in our nation. Although I think that there would be more people abstaining from voting, mainly because these people are so right-wing anyway, they couldn't vote for a Clinton name.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

I have to say rice would be a horrible presidency. I'd mutch rather see hillary in. She might have lots of gneerally disagreeable politics but shes not quite the neo-con that rice is.

[Des]

the republicans would hate a female vs female race... arnt those rednecks taught that men are superior?

quotes from pat robertson

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." :lol:

[bolshevik butcher]

LOL there really funny quotes. These people are still living in medieval times.

[Decolonize The Left]

Rice is a smarter, quicker, more capable, Bush. And Bush is bad enough. At least he doesn't really understand what he's doing, Rice fully does, like Cheney, and would doom the poor of our nation to a horrible future.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, its a horrifying prospect. Its a bit fo an irony really isnt it. A black female doing all that she can to hold black women back?

[Decolonize The Left]

True, quite ironic. But she doesn't see it that way, she sees the perverted view that anyone can get out of poverty if they want to.

Unfortunately, the statistics and studies don't back that capitalist propaganda. Many single mothers work 2 jobs, and only have enough money to pay the bills, feed the kids, and possibly buy some toys now and then. This results in a neglect of the children who will take to the streets, as well as attend our pathetic public school system, and continue the cycle.

-- August

[BitchBrew]

Sorry about my spelling, I'm swdish so I'm not used to writing in english. Allthough I usually spell things alot better then that.

But would she not gain any black vote?

[Decolonize The Left]

She might based on purely visual aids, but most people associate Rice with Bush, and most of the black population hates Bush, and with good reason: he's a racist.

I don't think she'd get a lot of support from blacks, especially not if the democrats put up a good campaign.

Oh, and don't worry about spelling, I just thought you might want to get her name correct at least. :)

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, she thinks that all americans can live the american dream becuase she has. It's really frustriating to see such an able person be of these opinions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Reality check people. The working class is screwed whoever is in power. The only reason we should be discussing this is damage control.

[Decolonize The Left]

I believe that was understood by most the people posting here. We're aware in capitalism the working class is screwed, but the topic wasn't whether or not the working class is screwed, it's about Clinton and Rice...

-- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:40 PM
I believe that was understood by most the people posting here. We're aware in capitalism the working class is screwed, but the topic wasn't whether or not the working class is screwed, it's about Clinton and Rice...

-- August
When people are being chased by wolves, they care little about the colour of it's fur. This discussion is redundant IMO.

[Reds]

despite the fact were not reformists should reforms that help the worker be favored?

[Decolonize The Left]

Of course Reds. We should always support any positive changes that can be made in the system. Obviously, eventually the system will need to be taken down, but until then, any changes that can make the poor's lives easier should be favored for sure.

-- August

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:45 AM
despite the fact were not reformists should reforms that help the worker be favored?
"The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement." - from the Communist Manifesto

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:24 AM
Of course Reds. We should always support any positive changes that can be made in the system.


I am not shur about that one.
Shouldn't we be using or energy to bring revolution first and formost?

[bolshevik butcher]

I think we have to work to reform things as well. Im not a reformist but as marx said why not work also to attain things jsut now. It will also gain us support.

[Decolonize The Left]

I am not shur about that one.
Shouldn't we be using or energy to bring revolution first and formost?

If the revolution were ready to occur, you would have a point. But since it is far from it, your point is null.

We don't have nearly enough support to launch a revolution, these reforms will only give us the support we need.

And if that doesn't change your mind, I'll simply ask a quetion:
How do you bring the revolution first and formost?

-- August