"unelectable" Right Wing Candidate Wins Primary In Us

[Kyoto]

A swing right as a result of economic crisis?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/christine-odonnell-delaware-midterms

[TheCountOfNowhere]

A swing right as a result of economic crisis?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/christine-odonnell-delaware-midterms

Coming to the UK soon.

UKIP will be my next vote.

[Realistbear]

Why are all anti-government moves considered right wing? Is this how the established VIs try to discredit a grass roots threat to their comfort zones? The PC brigade's fear of the spirit of Alf Garnet?

The people should not live in fear of their government but the government should learn to live in fear of the people

I like the sound of it. Nothing like a good old revolution to clear away the corruption and VIs. Perhaps we need another Olly Cromwell to get things stirred up over here. Olly was no right-winger either.

[luigi]

Masturbation is a sin!

We need someone like that to clear up the sticky mess the B*ankers have created!

Gordo and his chums certainly spun*ed our economy up the wall!

Kleenex anyone?

[Tonkers]

Ineteresting article about who funds the Tea Party right here

Delaware, is that not were many corporations are registered for tax reasons?

Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. “Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,” it said. “But you can do something about it.” The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires

[Dorkins]

Anybody who isn't yet another pro-finance pro-stimulus tool goes in the win column at this point.

[sharpe]

Why are all anti-government moves considered right wing? Is this how the established VIs try to discredit a grass roots threat to their comfort zones? The PC brigade's fear of the spirit of Alf Garnet?

The people should not live in fear of their government but the government should learn to live in fear of the people

I like the sound of it. Nothing like a good old revolution to clear away the corruption and VIs. Perhaps we need another Olly Cromwell to get things stirred up over here. Olly was no right-winger either.

Have you read through the history of many revolutions? Most people involved die badly. It is usually pretty terrible for anyone in the country involved.

[interestrateripoff]

Nothing will change all what happens is you get new leaders to put their snouts in the trough.

[Zngland]

Coming to the UK soon.

UKIP will be my next vote.

+1

[tomandlu]

Why are all anti-government moves considered right wing? Is this how the established VIs try to discredit a grass roots threat to their comfort zones? The PC brigade's fear of the spirit of Alf Garnet?

US politics is, afaik, slightly different than in the UK in that it doesn't just divide along left/right but also libertarian/statist.

However, since large social welfare projects depend on the state, it seems fairly inevitable that the majority of libertarians will also be on the right.

Why are you worried about the label? If you're right wing, why should you not want to admit it? Am I meant to mind about being labelled left wing?

[bendy]

Have you read through the history of many revolutions? Most people involved die badly. It is usually pretty terrible for anyone in the country involved.

have you read through the history on living in fascist nations - life not really worth living.

[Zngland]

Nothing will change all what happens is you get new leaders to put their snouts in the trough.

Smaller trough smaller pigs .

[Injin]

disagree.there are some people who aren't in it for the money.eg farage,mercer,

[Dorkins]

have you read through the history on living in fascist nations - life not really worth living.

Go and talk to elderly Portuguese people, plenty of them miss life under their dictator Salazar. It was a lot more stable than the wagonload of talentless corrupted chancers you get in your average 21st century democracy.

[interestrateripoff]

Go and talk to elderly Portuguese people, plenty of them miss life under their dictator Salazar. It was a lot more stable than the wagonload of talentless corrupted chancers you get in your average 21st century democracy.

Of course it was stable, as those that aren't in the loop or comply get beaten or disappear.

[fluffy666]

I hope Sarah Palin wins.If only because it will cause years of endless soulsearching at the BBC about where it all went wrong.

Whilst it would certainly be funny, try and remember that the US does still possess several thousand nuclear weapons and you'd be putting the trigger in the hands of someone who makes Bush look like an elder statesman..

[fluffy666]

Of course it was stable, as those that aren't in the loop or comply get beaten or disappear.

Which would probably be fine with the average Daily Mail reader, although Sun readers would probably prefer the beatings to be public.

[skomer]

US politics is, afaik, slightly different than in the UK in that it doesn't just divide along left/right but also libertarian/statist.

However, since large social welfare projects depend on the state, it seems fairly inevitable that the majority of libertarians will also be on the right.

Why are you worried about the label? If you're right wing, why should you not want to admit it? Am I meant to mind about being labelled left wing?

The US politics is largely split along fundamentalist religious grounds especially the republicans, or so it seems to me, we dont have that in the UK.

Obama will loose the mid terms (protest vote) but win at the next presidential elections.

Most people dont like or trust religious nutters whatever shape they come in

[interestrateripoff]

Most people dont like or trust religious nutters whatever shape they come in

Prohibition turned out so well the last time religious nutters held sway.

[wjk]

Would you (and the Lib media) have been alarmed if she was pro-masturbation?

Of course, Lib politicians rarely come out and take a stand for anything degenerate. Instead they say nothing and instead support pro-abortion and other laws that make it artificially easier to live a degenerate lifestyle.

Anyway, this is a non issue. I'd take an honest politician any day whether they were for or against masturbation.

[fluffy666]

Would you (and the Lib media) have been alarmed if she was pro-masturbation?

Of course, Lib politicians rarely come out and take a stand for anything degenerate. Instead they say nothing and instead support pro-abortion and other laws that make it artificially easier to live a degenerate lifestyle.

Anyway, this is a non issue. I'd take an honest politician any day whether they were for or against masturbation.

Hmmm. I'd point out that Adolf Hitler wrote down pretty much exactly what he was going to do in Mein Kamph years before WWII, if it wasn't for Goodwin's law.

[Snow Birds]

Whilst it would certainly be funny, try and remember that the US does still possess several thousand nuclear weapons and you'd be putting the trigger in the hands of someone who makes Bush look like an elder statesman..

Of course the most vocal opposition comes from those most removed from the present pointy-headed, intellectual, toffee nosed liberals that you most admire. I don't share your aspirations to become one of those who keep us all in our place so I don't care if she is against masturbation or is a Christian or if she prefers babies to three toed-tree frogs. I only care that we get rid of the present ruling elite . . . your lot!

[tomandlu]

Would you (and the Lib media) have been alarmed if she was pro-masturbation?

By and large, I'd prefer it if politicians would keep their hands off this particular subject. Probably a good idea if they keep their mouths shut when it comes to oral sex as well. Obviously, I'm also behind any politician who keeps their views on @n@1 sex to themselves.

[Dorkins]

Of course it was stable, as those that aren't in the loop or comply get beaten or disappear.

Yes, that's certainly true, although the rate of political incarceration in fascist Portugal was much less than in Spain or Chile.

My argument is that the claim that life is worse for everybody under fascism simply isn't true. Yes, it is worse for some: those who want a free press and democratic politics and are willing to agitate for them will find their lives very uncomfortable indeed. But for the uninterested majority, who only really care about having a reliable roof over their heads, food on the table, and some amusement? Fascism can deliver these.

And look at the competition! A "democratic" US government made up of millionaire representatives who compete to raise the most money from corporate donors in order to flood the media with election advertising. They have bankrupted the country at all levels of government and installed a wild fiat monetary policy which is creating paper billionaires at one end of the income spectrum and homeless dual income middle class families at the other. Election after election just puts more of the same cronies in place. Democracy does not appear to be strong enough to break corporate America's grip on the lever of power.

Here's a contentious claim: life for the majority of Americans would be more stable/comfortable under a dictatorship which stopped giving money to failed corporations, cut taxes on ordinary people, withdrew from its unwinnable wars, and introduced a stable currency regime. If American democracy continues to serve only the top 1% while throwing the bottom 90% into abject poverty, people might start supporting more radical regime change under the "bear arms" clause of the Constitution etc.

[EUBanana]

Here's a contentious claim: life for the majority of Americans would be more stable/comfortable under a dictatorship which stopped giving money to failed corporations, cut taxes on ordinary people, withdrew from its unwinnable wars, and introduced a stable currency regime. If American democracy continues to serve only the top 1% while throwing the bottom 90% into abject poverty, people might start supporting more radical regime change under the "bear arms" clause of the Constitution etc.

Not really that contentious. Aristotle wrote a treatise on government in Ancient Times, and identified three governmental types - monarchy, aristocracy and democracy ie government by one, a few, and many. And then went further to identify a debased form of each - tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule.

And then he said that monarchy was the best form of government - ie a benevolent and competent dictator - however tyranny was the worst. While democracy was the worst form of government and mob rule the least bad of the debased ones. He even defined "debased" as serving a part of the nation rather than the whole of the nation - in the case of tyranny serving the tyrant, in the case of oligarchy the rich, and in the case of mob rule, the indigent (oh, how accurate he was eh? )

He went into a lot more detail than this of course, but his conclusion that government should take elements of all three, and so you have the modern mixed constitution, and they would counter one anothers weaknesses. You see in the UK - monarchy, aristocracy (Lords) and democracy (Commons) and in the US as well. The US founding fathers were fairly open about Aristotle being one of their inspirations.

So, the benevolent dictator thing has been acknowledged for millenia.

I suppose Aristotle might argue that the UK once had a perfect mixed constitution but it's since became wholly democratic, and then lapsed into the debased form.