Hillary For President

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by beatsme, Sep 23, 2006.

  1. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #101
    You guys are ridiculous.

    The Nazi party was fascist, through and through. Fascism is pretty much the polar opposite of socialist.

    Fascists believe in a single government leader that has total control, essentially a dictator. It is an antithesis to democracy. Fascists believe in aggressive nationalism. Fascists are against state-ownership and control of capital - in this way they are similar to capitalists. Fascists are against principles of economic equality.

    Socialists believe that the state should own and control most things, including capital, to promote economic equality. Socialism is not an antithesis to democracy. It is possible, and commonly done, to have democratic elections in a socialist society.
     
  2. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #102
    We aren't talking about socialism. We're talking about National Socialism.
     
  3. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #103
    Yet the Nazi party's full name was National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Saying that calling someone a National Socialist isn't a reference to Naziism either means that the person saying it is ignorant or lying.
     
  4. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #104
    It is.
    The word Nazi is an abrevation of the term nationalsozialist.

    In reality however the term refers to the Nazi Ideology which incorporates, but is not limited to, national socialism.

    For deeper understanding:

    Most followers if Naziism are/were nationalists and socialists, but not all national socialists are followers of Naziism.

    The same way a thumb is a finger but not all fingers are thumbs.
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #105
    Hillary.

    The only ones on the Republican side sane enough to appeal to more than a fraction of general election voters are Kasich, Graham and Bush...and right now none of them look likely to win the nomination.
     
  6. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #106
    I've never read anything of the sort. The only thing I have ever read is that they are exactly the same thing. The Nazis are the ones that created National Socialism by redefining traditional socialism. The words "National Socialism" are the title of the ideology, they aren't separable into "nationalist" and "socialist", which are very different things.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #107
    When one is a liberal, then yes, that's exactly what one would want.

    Why does this surprise you?
     
  8. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #108
    I think we are nitpicking about semantics.

    The Nazi Ideology incorporates the Nazi religious beliefsystem (Walhalla, german christ, ...), socialism, nationalism, fascism, militarism, antisemitism and various other things.
     
  9. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #109
    Yes, the Nazis self-identified as that. But words have meanings, and meanings are important. Whatever they called themselves, they without a doubt fit strictly into the definition of fascists. People, including people at Newsweed, shouldn't throw around the words without considering them. Bernie holds many socialist ideas. He is definately not a fascist, nor a "National Socialist."
     
  10. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #110
    It can't be both fascism and socialist. They are ideologically opposite. It's like saying he incorporates some atheist beliefs and some christian beliefs. Doesn't compute.

    Indeed, the Nazis were very anti-Communist - which is a form of socialism.
     
  11. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #111
    Under the NSDAP regime the state did control everything. Kinda. Corporations and the state were somewhat merged.

    That's why after WW2 the sovjet style socialists in the DDR left the Nazi structures in place and just replaced the personelle.

    Also socialism has a psychological and societal component that the Nazis executed almost perfectly.
     
  12. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #112
    Nazis controlled only the war industry, they generally held dear the belief that people (of a specific race) should control all the capital and should profit from industry.

    I think you reading things into socialism that aren't there. Socialism has no psychological component, nor any societal requirements that I'm aware of (socialism can be a democracy, or it can be dictatorship; structure doesn't matter). It is a very narrow and very precise theory - the state should control all industry and capital to ensure optimal economic equality for all. Everything else is socialism + some other idea, or socialism applied to only a select segment. It's difficult to distinguish because to date, there has been no purely socialist country, and such a thing is purely theoretical. It is always socialism mixed with other theories, that are not socialist. This is why is disingenuous when someone says "look at europe/cuba/china/russia" etc. to point to socialism. However, socialism doesn't mix with some things, and one of those things is fascism.
     
  13. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #113
    Well, you're consistent. Those are the guys no Republican will vote for.
     
  14. 63dot, Nov 12, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2015

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #114
    Hilary again, but 2016 style.

    The republicans have no chance this time around, either against Hilary or against Sanders.

    Hilary has passed the test with emails and Benghazi so she's golden. Sanders has passed the test of Clinton, so his job is to hold steady and focus on battleground states in the fight for the democratic nomination. It could be close.

    If it were a personality contest for who is the nicest, then a number of republicans would score better than Hilary, but we are not voting for who is nicest but who is most experienced in government and who will do the best job among who is running. While I like Sanders, Clinton's depth of experience and name recognition gives her a slight edge, unfortunately.

    On the other side, Bush or Rubio has the nomination and their numbers are climbing ever so slowly like the pundits predicted. The amazing 40% percent Donald Trump nearly achieved is being chipped away at not unlike many other early favorites in different elections like Bachmann, Cain, and Perot.
     
  15. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #115
    Are you watching the news ? The FBI is expanding the probe, starting their own classification review, and is getting very serious about the investigation. It was also reported how Hillary was very unhappy with the FBI investigations.

    As I see it, the only way she will not be charged with anything is if the justice department decides not to go forward it (i.e. squashes it) or if she becomes president.
     
  16. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #116
    The GOP had its chance, and people like me who support Sanders, but Hilary got by mostly unscathed. The FBI will keep this up as a procedural thing and maybe a slap on the wrist but allegations or threats of allegations have done little to hurt her. Years of Benghazi talk did help Sanders get a foothold but the window of time supporters of Sanders like me had to take down Queen Hilary is long gone.

    I don't like Hilary but if she gets the White House, her even larger issues like Whitewater and insider trading will take her down. She will pull a Nixon, if you ask me, while in the White House. She's a seemingly vindictive and paranoid personality, based on reports of ex-staffers and press, and that will be her undoing. It's like America knows she is not trustworthy, but at the same time she's more qualified and would destroy a still unknown person like Rubio.

    Bush could beat Hilary but he would have to boost his image. He already has the visibility so it's just about appearing more presidential.
     
  17. jblagden macrumors 65816

    jblagden

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    #117
    In other words, it's very difficult to find a conservative who liberals will vote for. The tough thing about it is that many things which liberals want in a candidate would turn away many conservative voters.

    For example, some liberals might be okay with Kasich because he supports giving illegal immigrants work visas and handling the immigration problem that way. Liberals might be willing to for Kasich for that reason, but conservatives won't because that simply solves the legality issue and not the issue of numbers and jobs.

    Though, I don't think Bush has a chance, especially with his brother's track record.

    I'd say either Carson, Cruz or Trump have a good chance of being elected by conservatives. In this case, it's a matter of which side has more votes for a single candidate and which side has all the votes split up between two or more candidates. Though, this could probably be simplified if either Carson was going to be the Vice President of either Trump or Cruz.
     
  18. 63dot, Nov 12, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2015

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #118
    Trump, Cruz, or Carson on any part of the ticket will guarantee Hilary a win.

    The GOP has to get smart.

    Republicans are extremely (did is I say extremely) loyal voters and will back ANY person who runs as the republican presidential candidate so there's no problem there. Unfortunately for me, democrats and liberals (except far left) are very flaky and may or may not vote and don't care nearly as much for America. The last time the democrats cared was Kennedy, period. The republicans had just finished with popular war hero Eisenhower and Nixon had it in the bag but democrats decided for once to care and it made it happen.

    So the GOP already has their base and any registered republican, so the trick for the GOP is to carry independents. Independents are usually similar to moderate republicans and won't buy the whole religion and guns thing as much so the GOP needs a Bush or Rubio to win.

    In 2012 the much more loyal to issues republican was Santorum over Romney. Santorum also the had the Christian vote. However, had he run the GOP would carry maybe ten states. The GOP correctly guessed that Romney, even though a Mormon, would carry the Bible Belt. The GOP went for high percentage baseball and ran Romney and only lost by a state. Santorum would lose by five or six states.

    The key in a general election is to win, not to please the far left wing of the democrats or the far right wing of the republicans. Most Americans are in the middle and that's where elections are won. For better or for worse the middle does not like Sanders, Cruz, Trump, or Carson. Carson is the least hated by the middle but he still doesn't stand a chance against the dems.
     
  19. jblagden macrumors 65816

    jblagden

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    #119
    Good point. I guess I just get thrown off by the vocal minority. By the way, that's political, not racial; it's the opposite of the silent majority. It's mainly folks on the far-left who vocalize their opinions while everyone else generally keeps quiet to avoid political arguments.
     
  20. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #120
    We do?
     
  21. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #121
    I have seen so many on far left, which is me (democratic socialist) and the far right (pro-gun, Bible belt, pro-small government) and it's not likely members of either will easily cross lines.

    But the middle, which is very evident in Florida, New Jersey, Virginia, Ohio, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and a few others, will be more easily swayed and often just go with a name they know.

    While I obviously don't want Bush to win, he may be known just enough, yet not hated enough, to get elected over Hilary. Hilary has enough negatives by her dour approach and that could kill her. Her husband had a lot of charisma, a lot like Reagan really, but Hilary has none of that. She wasn't disliked while first lady but her true, vindictive nature came out when she was a senator. I think that's when democrats started to first show a negative reaction towards her. Why can't she be more like Bill is what many democrats thought. Why is she so stiff? She's a woman and by definition does not have a penis, but she walks around like she has a boner all the time and doesn't care. :)
     
  22. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #122
    Q: What's green and goose-steps?
    A: Snotzis
     
  23. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #123
    I agree with you that all democrats and many independents are of the opinion that Hillary's scandals are behind her and are planning on voting for her.

    However, the criminal investigations by the FBI have nothing to do with public opinion. Most of the allegations the FBI are looking into are felonies with more than a slap on the wrist. At the conclusion of the FBI's investigation, one of the following will happen.

    1) The FBI will chose to end its investigation in Hillary's favor.
    2) The FBI will keep the investigation going till after the election.
    3) The FBI will conclude the investigation and will bring the evidence to the justice department. The justice department will then convenes a grand jury or not.

    I personally believe that they will either stretch out the investigation till after the election or will throw Hillary to the dogs as soon as possible so as to be able to replace her with Sanders.
     
  24. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #124
    I think "Top Secret!" said it best...



    The book that writer cites sounds like a scream, too. Does Amazon have a book section for melodramas?
     
  25. jblagden macrumors 65816

    jblagden

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    #125
    Good point. Maybe I should have said "most other people" or something like that instead of using the broader phrase of "everyone else".
     

Share This Page