Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Howard Dean is just out there!
Topic Started: Aug 12 2005, 07:37 PM (222 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Aug 13 2005, 04:05 PM
What about telling people the potential negative consequence of failing to reform the social security system. Interesting if that increased those in favour.

The problem as I see it, the people who have the most influence (people of the generation older then my own) will not see any consequences if we where to do nothing and so they are very reluctant to act as it is not in their best interest. For them it is much easier to just push the issue away.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
The thing is while I am not a signed up supporter of one plan or another, for one thing I dont know enough about the US system, I am a supporter of Sustainable Development. Some people on the left focus almost completely on the social and environmental aspects of that but its got an economic side.

Sustainable development, put simply, means that we should have policies which will meet the needs of the present generation without compomising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. You can see that is a relevant concept in the case of pensions.

BTW sorry for being :offtopic:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
To try and keep it on topic :P

Now I dont know enought about US politics to say for sure but it seems to me that if the Democrats want to get back into positions of power they need to move to the centre. Usually the party that can hold the centre ground of politics and capture swing voters is the party that will win an election.

Perhaps the democrats could do with the 'New Labour' style treatment. Then again it was Clinton that helped Blair develop his strategy. Except that Blair doesnt have a term limit and he has kept faithful to his wife.

Nevertheless I still think that taking the centre ground is a winning strategy. In the UK it meant a New Labour Government which shed its socialist past and was prepared to persue Conservative policies where it thought they were sensible. That in turn pushed the Conservatives, the Government for 18 years, out of office and into the wilderness.

One thing is for sure you arent going to win, certainly not in America, by moving to the left. Now if John Kerry was seen as too left wing by the US electorate what the heck is this party doing giving a powerful role to someone who was clearly even further to the left? Doesnt seem very clear or clever thinking to me.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
One thing is for sure you arent going to win, certainly not in America, by moving to the left. Now if John Kerry was seen as too left wing by the US electorate what the heck is this party doing giving a powerful role to someone who was clearly even further to the left? Doesnt seem very clear or clever thinking to me.

So you guys don't have a clue what the leadership of the DNC is thinking either? They don't seem to be making much sense to me. Even if I don't agree with them, I'd like to see them at least put up a good effort. Well, maybe not, their idiocy has handed the Republican Party near total control of the Fed and a majority of state governments. 12 years ago it was the opposite.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The latest silliness from Howard Dean. This from "Face the Nation" on Sunday the 14th.

"It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."

I wonder if that includes the rape rooms, the mass graves, and y'know, that kind of thing?

Source:
http://washtimes.com/national/20050814-115425-7424r.htm
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 15 2005, 08:28 AM
The latest silliness from Howard Dean. This from "Face the Nation" on Sunday the 14th.

"It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."

I wonder if that includes the rape rooms, the mass graves, and y'know, that kind of thing?

Source:
http://washtimes.com/national/20050814-115425-7424r.htm

I think this should not just be dismissed. I think the concern arises from problems forming the new constitution. It was hoped that the government would be largely secular and united. There is controversy as to what role Islamic law will play and the rights of women and minorities. I do not think we want to see a Taliban style government that was supposed to be based on Islamic law. I am not an expert on Islam but it appears that women are treated on a level similar to animals in Islam.

There are other major problems with the draft constitution which could undermine the US and UK efforts there.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus