Hillary Clinton to Launch 2016 Campaign

[The Dragon Realms Empire]

Or maybe what you're saying is a Republican lie.

Republicans are generally honest.

Last time I checked it was a plurality not majority. Lets also not forget that there is a massive libertarian streak among young people as well. There's also the fact that I suspect what many think of as "socialism" is mainly "doing it like the Europeans do it". Which ranges from France's dirigisme, Germany's social market economy, the UK's "Third Way", the Nordic model, etc.

Young people need to be convinced that socialism is a cancer of the earth. Tomorrow shall belong to the righteous.

Or maybe Capitalism is the real cancer of the truth.
They are generally honest, because neither side exaggerates to make the other look bad or anything.

[Napkiraly]

That is a commie lie! Liars always get their say.

Or maybe people like you have been describing anything to the left of Ronald Reagan as "socialist" so loudly that young people think that's what the word means?

Not even the Raygun was as right as a number of Republicans have become.

[AiliailiA]

Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. If he was just a plain socialist, he'd join the Socialist Party.

As far as I can tell he's never been a member. Elected mayor of Burlington as an independent, later joined the Liberty Union party. Founded the Vermont Progressive Party and later the Progressive caucus. Not the Socialist Party though.

Plus iirc what he considers socialism is the just Nordic model (which already has a number of variations among the Nordic countries).

Bonus points most Americans support the level of income distribution in the Nordic countries.

I remember Paul Saulman's coverage of that on PBS Newshour Pravda TV.

[Eldridge Crossings]

Anyone is better than another Bush, Obama or person like Ted Cruz....

[United Russian Soviet States]

Republicans are generally honest.
Young people need to be convinced that socialism is a cancer of the earth. Tomorrow shall belong to the righteous.

Or maybe Capitalism is the real cancer of the truth.
They are generally honest, because neither side exaggerates to make the other look bad or anything.

Capitalism can be corrupted. We should not let that happen with capitalism.

[Utceforp]

Actually I have been reading that the majority of young people in America look at Socialism positively, so it's really possible that society is moving to the left.

That is a commie lie! Liars always get their say.

You can't be serious, right? And if you are serious, you have to be a time traveller from around 1950, right?

[Napkiraly]

Today's NY Post sums it up pretty well:

(Image)

The NY Post is also owned by one of the most biased and vapid humans in current existence. It's like most other sensationalist papers and should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

[United Russian Soviet States]

That is a commie lie! Liars always get their say.

You can't be serious, right? And if you are serious, you have to be a time traveller from around 1950, right?

I am serious and I am not a time traveler.

[The Dragon Realms Empire]

Or maybe Capitalism is the real cancer of the truth.
They are generally honest, because neither side exaggerates to make the other look bad or anything.

Capitalism can be corrupted. We should not let that happen with capitalism.

I could say the same about Socialism
and
A system that encourages greed is already corrupted.

[Norstal]

They used to say Canada, but I think they stopped once they realized they have universal healthcare.

Wait till they found out NZ has that too...

….Isn't it generally people closer to the left saying this?

I hear it when Obama or Clinton are mentioned. I suppose it could be leftists too, but I don't see why they'd run away at the chance of pissing off the right. Conservative saying that makes more sense to me since they think since Canada is under Harper, a conservative, everything else would be like their version of conservatism as well.

[United Russian Soviet States]

Capitalism can be corrupted. We should not let that happen with capitalism.

I could say the same about Socialism
and
A system that encourages greed is already corrupted.

Capitalism does not inherently encourage greed.

[Norstal]

That is a commie lie! Liars always get their say.

You can't be serious, right? And if you are serious, you have to be a time traveller from around 1950, right?

I don't understand why you people are so aghast on posters on NSG expressing these kind of opinions. It's not like Colbert ever revealed, "guys...guys...I'm not actually a Republican."

[Kelinfort]

I could say the same about Socialism
and
A system that encourages greed is already corrupted.

Capitalism does not inherently encourage greed.

Yes it does. And this is coming from a neoliberal capitalist.

[The Orson Empire]

I could say the same about Socialism
and
A system that encourages greed is already corrupted.

Capitalism does not inherently encourage greed.

It opens the door to greed, though.

This is why systems like communism can never work. Humans are naturally greedy and do not like to share with one another.

[Napkiraly]

I could say the same about Socialism
and
A system that encourages greed is already corrupted.

Capitalism does not inherently encourage greed.

Of course it does. And I favour it more than I do socialism. It's why it needs to be regulated.

[Mezzanera]

Today's NY Post sums it up pretty well:

(Image)

The NY Post is also owned by one of the most biased and vapid humans in current existence. It's like most other sensationalist papers and should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Hey, a broken clock is correct twice a day. (But that's not the point of this topic)

[Napkiraly]

Capitalism does not inherently encourage greed.

It opens the door to greed, though.

This is why systems like communism can never work. Humans are naturally greedy and do not like to share with one another.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-people-naturally-inclined-to-cooperate-or-be-selfish/

We're both. And it goes all the way up. It's why you can have some of the greediest poverty stricken people and some of the most generous wealthy people.

[The Orson Empire]

It opens the door to greed, though.

This is why systems like communism can never work. Humans are naturally greedy and do not like to share with one another.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-people-naturally-inclined-to-cooperate-or-be-selfish/

We're both. And it goes all the way up. It's why you can have some of the greediest poverty stricken people and some of the most generous wealthy people.

You do have a point.

Nevertheless, a system like communism usually requires a government that uses force to make people share (an example is the Soviet Union), and ultimately, such systems are unstable and cannot last forever.

[AiliailiA]

Or maybe people like you have been describing anything to the left of Ronald Reagan as "socialist" so loudly that young people think that's what the word means?

Not even Reagan was as right as a number of Republicans have become.

I know. (Though he's out of office and dead, be careful with the nicknames ...). The example was deliberately chosen to include people who aren't far left at all.

If the Reagan fans just looked at the real history instead of the myth, they'd see that Republicans had full control of Congress for zero of his 8 years. They held the Senate very narrowly for the first 6 (never enough to break a filibuster) and never the House. Of course he had to find common ground, he wasn't a dictator.

[The Nuclear Fist]

As much as I really don't want to, I'd support Clinton over anything the Repubs have to offer.

She's not a BAD candidate, we could certainly do worse, but she's basically a center rightist, and I don't want that.

[United States Kingdom]

America is a self proclaimed leader of the free world when it isn't.

[AiliailiA]

URSS logs out and everything goes very quiet.

Polling doesn't mean much at this stage. In April '07 the polls were saying Clinton was way ahead of Obama and speculation was which way Edwards supporters would move when he dropped out. Polls were also favouring Guiliani to beat Clinton in the election.

Well I agree with Yumyum that nothing like Obama's challenge will happen this time.

I agree, but perhaps for a different reason: for a candidate of the same party to win a third term has almost never happened since term limits removed the incumbency advantage. The one time in the last 16 terms when it DID go to the same party three times in a row was GHW Bush on the coat-tails of Reagan.
Now GHW Bush was a solid and predictable candidate, coming from the Vice presidency and very plausible for "more of the same". Reagan of course was a very popular President and Obama is only average-popular but we'll see. If a recession begins before the election nobody could win for the Dems, but if things are still going well (as they are now imo) he might peak at the end and provide a decent coat-tail for Clinton.

Whether Clinton can beat that pattern of "no third term" in the Presidency depends partly on luck (as above) but more on who the Republicans run. A solid and experienced candidate is the right choice for the Dems, but whether a "charismatic and intriguing" candidate is the right choice for the Reps I'm not so sure. Probably better for them to run solid against solid and rely on the pattern.

EDIT: I would count the '08 candidate as "solid". McCain was the right choice, given the disadvantage of being anywhere near GWB's dirty coat-tails. Picking Palin as VP was a mistake, most acknowledged even before election day rolled around. But probably no-one could have done any better to beat the pattern that time and win a third term for the Republicans.

[Vasileus]

As much as I hate to share certain concerns with the right wing media, I have to say I'm kinda worried about Hillary's age. If she gets elected in 2016, she will be around 69 years old (tied with the Gipper of all people for oldest president)

Now, I'm not saying that old people are qualified to lead the Nation, it's just that considering the other older Presidents, it's not always a good track record:

Reagan: 69 when elected, got dementia and probably loss control of the presidency due to complications related to that

Harrison: 68 when elected, died 34 days in office of pneumonia from the swearing in ceremony

Buchanan: 65, the civil war was clearly coming, and he lacked the will to deal with it

Taylor: 64, died within a year of taking office.

Really, the only Presidents that took office in their 60s that were good were Truman (60) and Eisenhower (62), and even they had their moments. I question electing one of the oldest presidents in American history, especially at a time when change is clearly needed.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I have a strong dislike of Hillary Clinton. I hope Rand Paul owns her in the election!

Oh my God. This is tiresome. Do you have anything of substance to add to the conversation, or are you just going to mindlessly bitch about "liberals"?

[AiliailiA]

As much as I hate to share certain concerns with the right wing media, I have to say I'm kinda worried about Hillary's age. If she gets elected in 2016, she will be around 69 years old (tied with the Gipper of all people for oldest president)

Now, I'm not saying that old people are qualified to lead the Nation, it's just that considering the other older Presidents, it's not always a good track record:

Reagan: 69 when elected, got dementia and probably loss control of the presidency due to complications related to that

Harrison: 68 when elected, died 34 days in office of pneumonia from the swearing in ceremony

Buchanan: 65, the civil war was clearly coming, and he lacked the will to deal with it

Taylor: 64, died within a year of taking office.

Really, the only Presidents that took office in their 60s that were good were Truman (60) and Eisenhower (62), and even they had their moments. I question electing one of the oldest presidents in American history, especially at a time when change is clearly needed.

Dying in office and going daft in office are two different things. Two of your 4 examples died.

As far as dying is concerned, a 69 yo woman has a life expectancy of 17.1 years while a man has 14.8 ... so, since there has never been a female president, you can take 2.3 years off HRC's age, making her younger than Harrison though not Buchanan. Using examples from more than a century ago is rather suspect anyway, due to lower life expectancy then and people dying from diseases like pneumonia which are treatable now. Reagan survived getting shot in the chest. No-one would have survived that in Buchanan's day.

As far as dementia, yes it might be a concern. Men get the early stages of it younger but it less often progresses. Women get it more than men, but mainly because more women live into their 90's. All round, the risk is about the same for a 69 yo woman as for a 69 yo man.

There should be no presumption that HRC will serve two terms though. LBJ declined the nomination to run for a second elected term, mainly due to fears for his own health, while Carter and GHW Bush ran but lost (the latter being particularly relevant, see my post above). If you consider that, HRC would be more than 4 years younger than Reagan at the end (for the matter of dementia) or 6.3 years younger (for the matter of dying in office).

I do think it's a concern, but more of the "Republicans will run someone younger and make a big deal of Hillary's age" sort than "oh no, not like Reagan forgetting he broke the law" sort.