I have decided to read books written by presidential hopefuls...which means I will be submerging myself in mainly republican ideology for the next few month...
So... to get in the mood, and because I could not get Hillary's book yet from the library, I decided to start off with "Back to Work" from Bill Clinton. I can't say that this is my preferred genre, so I admit I had some difficulty reading it, but, I finished it and overall I liked it. I admit that my critique of the book will be pretty superficial as I did not do any fact checking, but overall he documented his sources, so I am going to trust it. I liked that he was relatively bi-partisan praising republican programs when he saw fit, and condemning democrats as well. I liked that there was a lot of emphasis on clan energy and how it could create jobs as well as benefit the environment. I already finished the book a couple of weeks ago and did not take many notes, so it is hard for me to actually give a deep thoughtful analysis... I think one of the things that I remember most about the book was the case of a company in Arkansas that while going through a crisis decided to cut everyone's hours instead of laying off people, and if I remember correctly, the CEO even cut his salary in half...anyways, as I mentioned, I just read is as a teaser and I am just discussing a bit of it now...but stay tuned for more critiques on presidential hopefuls.
I ll finish this post on the only quote that I copied from Bill's book...
...Our constitution was designed by people who were idealistic but not ideological. There’s a big difference. You can have a philosophy that tends to be liberal or conservative but still be open to evidence, experience, and argument. That enables people with honest differences to find practical, principled compromise. On theother hand, fervent insistence on an ideology makes evidence, experience, and argument irrelevant: If you possess the absolute truth, those who disagree are by definition wrong, and evidence of success or failure is irrelevant. There is nothing to learn from the experience of other countries. Respectful arguments are a waste of time. Compromise is weakness. And if your policies fail, you don’t abandon them; instead, you double down, asserting that they would have worked if only they had been carried to their logical extreme.
Powerful stuff...right? haha
I would want to know more about Bernie Sanders at this point. I think Hilary is the best person that can run this country given how divided it is, but I hate to see people from same family to run a country in a democracy! So Hilary is not a choice if you have principles. I've also heard she is a total bitch, easily trading principles on any subject for political benefit, I give it to her that she should be to stay in politics, and she particularly proved that after Levinsky story). So I may want to read more on her, but certainly autobiographies are not helpful in my opinion. I would look up to see how these guys voted in congress over the years...
ReplyDeleteFrom the Republicans there is absolutely no one that I could bring myself to wasting my time to know more about. I know enough about them that i know i don't want to know more. I don't even want to name them. Republicans have all turned to tea party far right and democrats now are closest they've ever been to being republican. Maybe if Ron Paul would run again, i would consider reading to know more about him, i found his views the most reasonable among all republicans.
I don't know much about clinton other than that women really liked him! I've also heard that he used to give fantastic speeches and that he is proud of the highest economic growth after the wwii during his presidency.
If I can get my hands on Bernie's book, I will read that one and we can "discuss"! meanwhile i have Le Capital from Thomas Piketti that I really want to read... I also bought Time's special edition on Pope Francis. I really like this new Pope.
Still, your thoughts and writing are pleasant to read... keep at it.
I don't know...I don't necessarily agree with you. First, Hillary is still her own person and as long as she is elected democratically, who she is married to should have no effect....I don't see how that shows lacks of principles in any way. I love Bernie.... watched the debate last night and I completely agree with most of what he says, but he is not electable. He is a self-proclaimed socialist which in this country is a very dirty word (need to clarify that not to me).
ReplyDeleteAs far as Hillary flip-flopping, well, don;t hate the player, hate the game... sometimes moderation actually gets things done. One example is don't ask don't tell. Both Clinton's have been highly criticized over it, but what some people fail to understand is that it was a big step for the time period. This days it seems like a very bigoted law, but back then it actually gave homosexuals a possibility of joining the military by making it illegal to ask for sexual preference.
Also, at the risk of sounding like a feminist, I hate it when people refer to a woman as a bitch just because they have strong.
Finally, I get it that when people write about themselves they'll most likely put their best foot forward, but you can actually learn a lot about their believes and how they got them...for instance, reading Ben Carson's book was certainly eye opening...about how crazy that man is!
Also, if you like the Pope, maybe you should read Laudato Si.
In Monarchies, the best person to rule the country was (usually) the heir because by being in the system they got the education and experience needed to rule, ... same is happening in the current capitalist democracy... Nobel families who rise to power through wealth and politics stay around (I am sure you hear about Chelsea Clinton for 2044 or something, haven't you?) Someone said why don't we just marry Clintons with Bushes and create a bread of presidents... What do you think of that? I say, after 2 rounds of election wit hone president, the most eligible person to run the country is that same president, but why is it in the law that he can't be selected for a third time? with the same token, no one from the same family should be allowed... This is turning into Capitalist Monarcracy! (I just made that up but it sounds great!)
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with a little bit of feminism, I am myself to some extent :) someone used that adjective when we were discussing politics and it stuck with me and I used it, I shouldn't have... Don't hate me...
If you like Bernie, then vote for him! don't be afraid of losing the election, what's important is to voice your true opinion so people like Bernie know they've got support and they have someone to stand for. That also gives them more negotiation power even if they are not elected. I don't want to preach you, but believe in change... It can happen
I loved the Pope since the day he started (I know, I fall in love easily... but when you know it's the right person, it is easy!) when he scraped a lot of luxuries associated with Papacy and then his mild positions on gay people and addressing poverty and then a few months ago when I couldn't go to my office for 15 minutes until I finished listening to Amy Goodman in the car discussing his encyclical :) Not that his views are the most righteous or sound (They are fine, better thinkers than him have been around), but I admire his courage to bring this significant change to the old rotten structure and belief system of the Church, and use his power to fix things around the world
Well.... monarchies are based on divine right... the heir wI'll become monarchs regardless of their education status... if the people want to vote for another bush or another clinton, that is a different story. In present day America, there are hundreds of people as educated as any Bush or Clinton out there. In addition, there are plenty of succesfull democracies without term limits...Tony Blair was pm for 10 years and I believe Angela Merkle has been chancellor for that long....the problem is in nations where corruption is high and the executive branch has more power and leaders end up "democratically" staying in power through electoral fraud and overuse of power... in Venezuela, for instance, Chavez was originally elected by the people but stayed through changing laws as he saw fit, imprisoning anyone who went against him and rigging elections...and Maduro continues this legacy so the same party rules despite the majority of the population being againt it...you may know a thing or 2 about that.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I can't vote for Bernie because he won't win a general election and it is a big deal. I don't want this country to be ruled by Trump or Carson or Rubio or Ted Cruz, so I have to vote for who I think has a better chance at beating them. Bernie is great in Senate and I doubt he would actually get to do much as president. I ve been debating whether he would be good as vp, which basically depends on how much the president works with him... or whether he just becomes a figure head, in which case he is better off as a senator.
Well.... monarchies are based on divine right... the heir wI'll become monarchs regardless of their education status... if the people want to vote for another bush or another clinton, that is a different story. In present day America, there are hundreds of people as educated as any Bush or Clinton out there. In addition, there are plenty of succesfull democracies without term limits...Tony Blair was pm for 10 years and I believe Angela Merkle has been chancellor for that long....the problem is in nations where corruption is high and the executive branch has more power and leaders end up "democratically" staying in power through electoral fraud and overuse of power... in Venezuela, for instance, Chavez was originally elected by the people but stayed through changing laws as he saw fit, imprisoning anyone who went against him and rigging elections...and Maduro continues this legacy so the same party rules despite the majority of the population being againt it...you may know a thing or 2 about that.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I can't vote for Bernie because he won't win a general election and it is a big deal. I don't want this country to be ruled by Trump or Carson or Rubio or Ted Cruz, so I have to vote for who I think has a better chance at beating them. Bernie is great in Senate and I doubt he would actually get to do much as president. I ve been debating whether he would be good as vp, which basically depends on how much the president works with him... or whether he just becomes a figure head, in which case he is better off as a senator.
Those examples are parliamentary democracies, people vote parties to power not a person. besides Canada is successful democracy and Harper stayed too long in power until people got sick of his attitude and kicked the whole party out because he stayed too long in power and got the illusion that he can do whatever he wants. Kind of like a king, like a monarch! So you see, parliamentary democracy with 1 person for 10 years is also sickening. Justin Trudeau is the son of Pierre Trudeau Canada's PM in the 80's, but it's been 30 years since then and it's safe to say people selected him not because of his father, and that his family name didn't have to do anything with his election. It was his own hard work going door to door with 100K volunteers talking to people. I am not saying that democracies will turn Monarchies if they allow people from same families to run the country, I am saying it's new type of government where noble families grab the hold of all important and key positions because they intermingle and network with each other and marry between families and know how to keep the power and wealth concentrated in between them. So instead of Monarchs we will have noble families and they will stay around because wealth will not be redistributed in the capitalist democracy, so ... this is my thought, I am not insisting it's correct, i am not even sure if I am stating it clear enough. .. Anyway...Vote as you wish...idealists paint the dreams, pragmatists get things done... I always thought of you as an idealist than pragmatist
ReplyDeleteThose examples are parliamentary democracies, people vote parties to power not a person. besides Canada is successful democracy and Harper stayed too long in power until people got sick of his attitude and kicked the whole party out because he stayed too long in power and got the illusion that he can do whatever he wants. Kind of like a king, like a monarch! So you see, parliamentary democracy with 1 person for 10 years is also sickening. Justin Trudeau is the son of Pierre Trudeau Canada's PM in the 80's, but it's been 30 years since then and it's safe to say people selected him not because of his father, and that his family name didn't have to do anything with his election. It was his own hard work going door to door with 100K volunteers talking to people. I am not saying that democracies will turn Monarchies if they allow people from same families to run the country, I am saying it's new type of government where noble families grab the hold of all important and key positions because they intermingle and network with each other and marry between families and know how to keep the power and wealth concentrated in between them. So instead of Monarchs we will have noble families and they will stay around because wealth will not be redistributed in the capitalist democracy, so ... this is my thought, I am not insisting it's correct, i am not even sure if I am stating it clear enough. .. Anyway...Vote as you wish...idealists paint the dreams, pragmatists get things done... I always thought of you as an idealist than pragmatist
ReplyDelete