US presidential elections and the wider world

[Enkidu]

Neo Con Barbie. A rabidly right wing US political writer, allegedly attractive, (personally, it takes more than just long blonde hair to do it for me). I saw her interviewed by Paxman on Newsnight, and the intensity of her wilful ignorance, arrogance, and sheer breath taking hatred left him speechless, and just making um noises and opening and closing his mouth like a goldfish.

[Reliant121]

Am I the only one that doesn't understand anything about the political race goin on in the USA?

[Sionnach Glic]

Neo Con Barbie. A rabidly right wing US political writer, allegedly attractive, (personally, it takes more than just long blonde hair to do it for me). I saw her interviewed by Paxman on Newsnight, and the intensity of her wilful ignorance, arrogance, and sheer breath taking hatred left him speechless, and just making um noises and opening and closing his mouth like a goldfish.

Ah, one of those types.

[Captain Seafort]

Neo Con Barbie. A rabidly right wing US political writer, allegedly attractive, (personally, it takes more than just long blonde hair to do it for me). I saw her interviewed by Paxman on Newsnight, and the intensity of her wilful ignorance, arrogance, and sheer breath taking hatred left him speechless, and just making um noises and opening and closing his mouth like a goldfish.

She left Paxman speechless? I always thought the right wing of the Republican party had the collective IQ of a goldfish, but if their stupidity is leaving Jeremy Paxman speechless with astonishment then I've been insulting the goldfish.

[Mikey]

Ann Coulter is (to put it exceedingly mildly) a right-wing apologist of a political pundit.

[Captain Seafort]

Found it on YouTube

Bloody hell's teeth. I'm divided on whether Paxman should have gone after her the way he usually does with idiots, or whether he was doing the right thing in letting her talk and dig herself a deeper and deeper hole. The intro was well-done though - the best way to demonstrate that someone's a few sandwiches short of a picnic is to let their own words do it for you.

[Captain Peabody]

You know, all this reminds me of a bit of wisdom I heard once; if you go far enough one direction politically, eventually you come out on the other side. Apparently Coulter has now gone so far right-wing that she's met up with Hillary on the other side; fine with me... if she wants Hillary, she's welcome to her. A match made in heaven, huh?

All I can say is, thank goodness she and the other wierdos from the far right don't represent mainstream Conservatism....

[Captain Seafort]

You know, all this reminds me of a bit of wisdom I heard once; if you go far enough one direction politically, eventually you come out on the other side. Apparently Coulter has now gone so far right-wing that she's met up with Hillary on the other side; fine with me... if she wants Hillary, she's welcome to her. A match made in heaven, huh?

"Other side"? Clinton's centre-right herself. I suspect the reason Coulter would prefer Clinton over McCain is that the latter has s good chance of shifting the Republicans back from Coulter's brand of lunacy back to a more reasonable centre-right position

All I can say is, thank goodness she and the other wierdos from the far right don't represent mainstream Conservatism....

I wouldn't be too sure of that. I recall a CNN (which I believe is considered to be politically left-of-centre in the US) debate on atheism that was posted on here a few months ago. The views expressed during it were, to put it mildly, alarming.

[sunnyside]

Clinton is not center right. Geez. Actually she's a little hard to pin down on the political spectrum, but she's definitly somewhere in the left.

Actually, maybe Coulter just found a method that works (I presume she is fairly rich at this point).

Step 1. Pick something conservatives are concerned about. Such as being able to praise Metallic but not god in a graduation speech or media bias.

Step 2. Turn it up a notch or ten until your position has gotten to a point where it'll be sure to create controversy and be noted.

Step 3. Sell it and rake in the money.

So maybe she's just following the formula. (or hoping to get someone that's more likely to rile up conservatives like Hillary)


I don't know about this debate Seafort mentions. But there are some people out there who are pretty fanatical (both sides) and if someone has to choose which replies to post a journalist will tend to put up the more "interesting" ones.

[Mikey]

She certainly is taking crazy to the bank, but crazy is crazy nonetheless.

I'm glad to see that folks form outside the US can see (more objectively than I) how many cards short of a deck that this woman is.

Seafort, at least, will appreciate this analogy: she is the political analogue of Karen Traviss. I.e., she will spout something ridiculous, and then when somebody disagrees with her she will launch into a tirade about how ignorant, stupid, un-American, or all of the above he is, with her reasoning being simply that he disagrees with her.

[Captain Seafort]

Clinton is not center right. Geez. Actually she's a little hard to pin down on the political spectrum, but she's definitly somewhere in the left.

On the left of the US political spectrum maybe, but a lot of her policies (support of the death penalty, opposition to government-run health care, support of firearms ownership, support of the Patriot Act, etc) are definitely right-wing policies. It's her positions on climate change and her support of some form of government support WRT health insurance that makes her centre-right rather than dyed in the wool right-wing.

I don't know about this debate Seafort mentions. But there are some people out there who are pretty fanatical (both sides) and if someone has to choose which replies to post a journalist will tend to put up the more "interesting" ones.

Absolutely, however in this case there was a distinct lack of any representation from the group being discussed.

Initial article

Debate

[sunnyside]

Um, what?

The national rifle association rates her record with an "F" (She's definitly does not support firearm ownership as Americans see it).

She also strongly supports "universal health care", which (mostly) is how Democrats say "government run health care" without having to actually say "government run," which is a combination of two words that most Americans don't like to see next to each other.

She also isn't a "supporter" of the patriot act although she did vote for it. She's like that on a couple issues and she's going to have to come up with a good way to quickly express her positions on things like that or she's going to get beat up in debates, especially once she's got a Republican across from her.

The debate afterwards the CNN story was kind of weird. I would have expected a Christian, a Jew, and an atheist. Though the debate kinda has the feeling of being thrown together at the last moment from people who were standing around. I don't know who two of those people are but why in the world did they grab the sports commentator for that?

Anyway on the Coulter supporters I think, especially in the bible belt, there are a fair number of people who are fanatically conservative on a wide range of issues. I don't know what percentage of the population they make up down there, but things mellow out a whole lot once you move out of those areas.

[Captain Seafort]

The national rifle association rates her record with an "F" (She's definitly does not support firearm ownership as Americans see it).

Does she advocate repealing the 2nd Amendment and banning civilian ownership of firearms? If not then I'd count that as "supporting firearms ownership".

She also strongly supports "universal health care", which (mostly) is how Democrats say "government run health care" without having to actually say "government run," which is a combination of two words that most Americans don't like to see next to each other.

My understanding was that she supports government subsidised medical insurance, but not a full-scale government-run National Health Service.

She also isn't a "supporter" of the patriot act although she did vote for it. She's like that on a couple issues and she's going to have to come up with a good way to quickly express her positions on things like that or she's going to get beat up in debates, especially once she's got a Republican across from her.

Which is it? Voting for a measure seems to be a pretty strong sign of supporting it. The general impression I get is that she supports the act in principle while objecting to some of its more extreme aspects, such as warrentless phonetaps.

[Mikey]

Does she advocate repealing the 2nd Amendment and banning civilian ownership of firearms? If not then I'd count that as "supporting firearms ownership".

OK - Without you having lived in America at length, I can understand your confusion over this. The actual second amendment is often confused with de facto latitude to own a gun for any purpose. I don't think anyone (except Huckabee) is advocating changing the Constitution; the debates in the US generally run around the ideas of ownership restrictions (waiting periods, degree of background checks, etc.) and types of firearms available to the public.

My understanding was that she supports government subsidised medical insurance, but not a full-scale government-run National Health Service.

I don't believe that any of the true mainstream candidates with a real chance would be looking to adopt a Canadian or British system... you'd lose too much of the center that way. But what Hillary has advocated is government subsidized AND mandated health care, so there would be more regulation than that of just paying in part on the part of the government. This is not necessarily a left-of-the-aisle idea, however; c.f. the Governator's California plan.

Which is it? Voting for a measure seems to be a pretty strong sign of supporting it. The general impression I get is that she supports the act in principle while objecting to some of its more extreme aspects, such as warrentless phonetaps.

Here's the problem with Hillary. Too often she will campaign on a particular plank of her platform, and then you notice that she voted for the opposite side of that issue in the past. You show more insight that perhaps you even intended, because the question I have to ask most often when examining her campaign is in fact, "Which is it?"

[Captain Seafort]

OK - Without you having lived in America at length, I can understand your confusion over this. The actual second amendment is often confused with de facto latitude to own a gun for any purpose.

As I understand it no one can figure out whether it means state militias can't be banned, everyone's allowed whatever firearm takes their fancy with no restrictions, or somewhere in between.

I don't think anyone (except Huckabee) is advocating changing the Constitution; the debates in the US generally run around the ideas of ownership restrictions (waiting periods, degree of background checks, etc.) and types of firearms available to the public.

The question was to some degree rhetorical - my point was that while Clinton may advocate more restrictive firearms-control legislation than currently exists, she does not oppose the principle of permitting civilian ownership of firearms.

I don't believe that any of the true mainstream candidates with a real chance would be looking to adopt a Canadian or British system... you'd lose too much of the center that way.

There's the rub - how do you define "centre"? Over here an individual would be considered extremely right-wing if they were to advocate disbanding the NHS. At the moment there's quite a bit of debate regarding whether individuals should be allowed to purchase additional treatment to top up their NHS treatment (the cases usually involve experimental or expense drugs that the NHS doesn't provide.

But what Hillary has advocated is government subsidized AND mandated health care, so there would be more regulation than that of just paying in part on the part of the government. This is not necessarily a left-of-the-aisle idea, however; c.f. the Governator's California plan.

But the health care itself would still be provided by privately-run institutions, rather than by a nationwide civil-service organisation. The extreme left-wing position this side of the isn't that the government should be the one providing health care, but that private health care should be at the very least discoraged and at most banned.

My point isn't to argue whether a given political position is good, bad or otherwise, but to refute sunnyside's argument that Clinton's politics are generally left of centre rather than centre-right, at least from the perspective of British politics.