Thank you, Will. I assume that you know that your third party vote only benefits the Republicans? Nader is planning another run. Bloomberg is almost an independent certainty. Every vote to independent/fringe candidates takes a vote from the Dems. These candidates will simply return the presidency to the Republican party.
There is no guarantee that the Dem's will win. Many believe that 2008 is already fixed, including Greg Palast who has documentation for that claim.
Will, promotion of independent/third party candidates needs to begin locally. If you choose to make one of them you choice nationally, you are handing your vote to the Republican party.
Make your choice, as is your right. Please don't complain, if another Republican takes the presidency.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
globalization isnt a state--its a group of processes. you cant be coherent about them if you treat them as elements of a state which simply appear, which have no history. the conditions of possiblity for globalizing capitalism--i mean the active enabling conditions--include a number of things done by the nixon administration too--internationalization of stock trade, going off the bretton woods arrangement, the dismantling of the new deal agricultural subsidy system, etc. the reagan period was largely about using enormous military expenditures to stimlate the economy--and rigging indices so that things which didnt respond werent counted. it was also about union busting, but that's another story.
end digression.
actual response to the thread to follow.
|
I don't view it as a digression, but an important issue that must be addressed. Would you agree that the US will be unable to improve it's economy without considering our trading partners and other exchange issues?
"Reagan" (as a term that more accurately represents his carefully crafted persona) is not another story, it is *the* story that explains our war driven economy and the "trickle down" theory of deregulation. Deregulation created the corporatist economy that we now have. Ustwo, when he believes that his Clinton challenge of '92-'00 as some sort of viable economic criticism, simply doesn't get it. There was *no* difference in corporatist policy and that is why Hillary is so distrusted among democrats.
So, yes, I agree that a group of very complex processes are necessary to address our economic issues. I don't view it as a simple nation state problem of exchanges, as you suggest. This topic did not ask for that level of disposition, but that discussion needs to be held elsewhere.