FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Socialist for NYC Mayor





Nick2008
http://russiatoday.ru/Politics/2009-07-09/_When_I_become_a_socialist_NYC_Mayor__.html

Quote:

New York’s mayor and billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg, the seventeenth richest person in the world, is running for a third term in office, but he faces a challenge from a determined single mother socialist.

Frances Villar is a 26-year-old university student and single mother preparing to challenge the city’s richest man in the upcoming mayoral election. She promises more help for the poor and the working class, and says her party could turn America from capitalism to communism.


Great, now we have a 26-year old single mom socialist running for mayor of one of the largest cities of business. Highly doubt she'll make it through though.
Bikerman
Err...do you really think this is worthy of serious debate?
Nick2008
Bikerman wrote:
Err...do you really think this is worthy of serious debate?


Serious debate? No. Laughing

She'll be lucky even if she gets her name on the ballot.

But it does show how desperate some people are getting...
lagoon
Socialist for NYC Mayor? YES!

Will it happen? NO!
Bikerman
Nick2008 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Err...do you really think this is worthy of serious debate?


Serious debate? No. Laughing

She'll be lucky even if she gets her name on the ballot.

But it does show how desperate some people are getting...

Not really - there is a national communist party in the US and I don't find it odd that they may field a candidate.
Look at the source of your story...
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
http://russiatoday.ru/Politics/2009-07-09/_When_I_become_a_socialist_NYC_Mayor__.html

Quote:

New York’s mayor and billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg, the seventeenth richest person in the world, is running for a third term in office, but he faces a challenge from a determined single mother socialist.

Frances Villar is a 26-year-old university student and single mother preparing to challenge the city’s richest man in the upcoming mayoral election. She promises more help for the poor and the working class, and says her party could turn America from capitalism to communism.


Great, now we have a 26-year old single mom socialist running for mayor of one of the largest cities of business. Highly doubt she'll make it through though.
I'm glad. As I really like Michael Bloomberg, and if this is the kind of opposition he will be getting, then he obviously stands a very good chance.
Stubru Freak
What's the big deal? My city has had a socialist mayor since 1989 and it's still getting nicer to live in every day.
Vrythramax
This doesn't surprise me one bit. No matter what a persons feeling are on the subject, we all have to admit that in the US they have the right to their own opinion and beliefs.

Many have died to ensure those rights.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
This doesn't surprise me one bit. No matter what a persons feeling are on the subject, we all have to admit that in the US they have the right to their own opinion and beliefs.

Many have died to ensure those rights.
A number of the "Boston Legal" shows with that eloquent lawyer Allan Shore, debated that those rights are in trouble as citizens of the US have stopped fighting for those rights. He often refers to the First Amendment in those debates. Do you agree? Think Question

Quote:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
Many have died to ensure those rights.
A number of the "Boston Legal" shows with that eloquent lawyer Allan Shore, debated that those rights are in trouble as citizens of the US have stopped fighting for those rights. He often refers to the First Amendment in those debates. Do you agree? Think Question

Quote:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/quote]

This would be a good debate for another thread, but it really takes this one off topic. Idea
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
This would be a good debate for another thread, but it really takes this one off topic. Idea

Good idea Idea Will work on it in a day or so. Back to the New York Mayor discussion, does anyone know whether Bloomberg will be standing for election again?
lagoon
I always thought he'd want to stand for President?
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
I always thought he'd want to stand for President?
As far as I know he was nominated, but then withdrew. Maybe New York is where his heart is? He is doing very well there, I can imagine he must have very good reasons for preferring to be the Mayor of New York ... maybe someone knows why this is ? Think
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
As far as I know he was nominated, but then withdrew. Maybe New York is where his heart is? He is doing very well there, I can imagine he must have very good reasons for preferring to be the Mayor of New York ... maybe someone knows why this is ? Think


Seems if his heart was truly in New York, he'd be able to do much more for his state of choice as President.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
deanhills wrote:
As far as I know he was nominated, but then withdrew. Maybe New York is where his heart is? He is doing very well there, I can imagine he must have very good reasons for preferring to be the Mayor of New York ... maybe someone knows why this is ? Think


Seems if his heart was truly in New York, he'd be able to do much more for his state of choice as President.
Who knows, maybe he has some vested interest in New York. This is where his family is. Not sure how he worked it out, or maybe it was worked out for him not to stand for President.
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
Who knows, maybe he has some vested interest in New York. This is where his family is. Not sure how he worked it out, or maybe it was worked out for him not to stand for President.


We are talking about a politician here, if he/she doesn't have a vested interest in something...they don't act on it. Wink
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Who knows, maybe he has some vested interest in New York. This is where his family is. Not sure how he worked it out, or maybe it was worked out for him not to stand for President.


We are talking about a politician here, if he/she doesn't have a vested interest in something...they don't act on it. Wink
Right! I'd forgotten about that. I guess I'm very gullible in a way (sincerely meant Laughing ) as I'm a real pushover for politicians who look as though they care. The last I saw of him was after the crash landing of the airplane in the Hudson River. The efficiency of the rescue with everyone being where they had to be as on cue to me said a lot about his priorities, and also him being there in person and complimenting his troops on a job well done, I liked that! But then I remember that movie with Al Pacino and was it Kusack as well and Brigitte Fonda and how this wonderful affable mayor (also of Italian origins) was really crooked as possibly being popular and robbing Peter to pay Paul sometimes have to go together. Maybe it is how the game of politics is played in New York!
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
Right! I'd forgotten about that. I guess I'm very gullible in a way (sincerely meant Laughing ) as I'm a real pushover for politicians who look as though they care.


I never said the don't care about anything, just that they don't act on anything unless they have an interest in it in some way...that could also be simply because they care about "whatever". That's kind of uncommon though...IMO.

Quote:
Maybe it is how the game of politics is played in New York!


I don't know if you remember the Tammany Hall Machine in New York, but it was so corrupt that it was one of the biggest mitigating factors in people believing that all politicians were "on the take", "shady", or just plain couldn't be trusted. Chicago was another very politically corrupt place. Now-a-days it seems it is the way the game is played all over, and on a global scale as well.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
I don't know if you remember the Tammany Hall Machine in New York, but it was so corrupt that it was one of the biggest mitigating factors in people believing that all politicians were "on the take", "shady", or just plain couldn't be trusted. Chicago was another very politically corrupt place. Now-a-days it seems it is the way the game is played all over, and on a global scale as well.
I do remember, and yes, it is quite shocking but you are right, it does seem to be a game played all over. I wonder whether the Mafia still features in it as well though?
Da Rossa
No, for the second poster: this is not for a serious debate. But, about this:

Quote:
She promises more help for the poor and the working class, and says her party could turn America from capitalism to communism.


only one wish: may God keep America away from people with such an idea.

And for the people that think communism is about helping the poorer: go read and learn what the communist regimes have done in the 20th century.
Nick2008
Da Rossa wrote:
No, for the second poster: this is not for a serious debate. But, about this:

Quote:
She promises more help for the poor and the working class, and says her party could turn America from capitalism to communism.


only one wish: may God keep America away from people with such an idea.

And for the people that think communism is about helping the poorer: go read and learn what the communist regimes have done in the 20th century.


Pure Communism has started out well (take 1917 and few years afterwards), most were happy and lived well... until someone decides to change the laws and mess it up into something of a totalitarian bureaucracy. Stalinism was not pure communism, North Korea is not pure communism, and China is not pure communism. It can't work do to our greed and selfishness.

I would never trust anyone with little political experience to experiment with communism, especially in America.
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
Pure Communism has started out well (take 1917 and few years afterwards), most were happy and lived well... until someone decides to change the laws and mess it up into something of a totalitarian bureaucracy. Stalinism was not pure communism, North Korea is not pure communism, and China is not pure communism. It can't work do to our greed and selfishness.

I would never trust anyone with little political experience to experiment with communism, especially in America.
This was well said Nick. And agreed. Also, both Russia and China come with a very fixed and entrenched legacy of dictatorships. Their citizens have rarely really experienced freedom, so communism would not have been a good fit at all. It was an ideology that was used by totalitarian leaders in vain. I also cannot see it work in a capitalist based society. At least one part of it would probably work well though, the black market ... Smile
Da Rossa
I knew someone would say something about the USSR and China. "They have not reached the pure communism, the leaders got selfish, wanted more and more power and then there was a new bourgeoisie, so they deviated from Marx ideas and values, and blablabla." Fair enough. Well, in the marxism there is a lot of true ideas. Like in every philosophical theory. But we both know that the communism in the way the young people think and want is never going to happen, and every support this idea gets is irresponsible. The human being is always greedy and likes power. What makes you think that, when the regime is implanted, there is gonna be a total well-being? The ones who advocate the transition to communism do it with second thoughts. Since the State comes before the society and that comes before the individual, anyone who is in a leading position may claim "public interest" to each of their tyranny.
Vrythramax
Nick2008 wrote:
Pure Communism has started out well (take 1917 and few years afterwards), most were happy and lived well... until someone decides to change the laws and mess it up into something of a totalitarian bureaucracy. Stalinism was not pure communism, North Korea is not pure communism, and China is not pure communism. It can't work do to our greed and selfishness.

I would never trust anyone with little political experience to experiment with communism, especially in America.


I agree that communism starts out well but seems to fizzle out with time. I don't know why exactly, it has the appearences of something that should work...not for me, but that doesn't matter. Possibly it's (Communism) failure is partially due to all the negative media surrounding it?
Bikerman
No, the problem is that communism cannot survive in isolation where you have powerful capitalist states in opposition. Any state that tries to implement a 'true' version of communism is immediately going to be up against capitalism. Now, when it comes to things such as international trade, then the proper communist system (being based on non-exploitation of the labour force) is going to run into difficulties with capitalist states (being based on the opposite).
Marx, of course, theorised that capitalism was a necessary 'stage' before communism. He appears to have got this analysis badly wrong - based on many factors, including the rise of the 'middle class', and more widely his invalid 'value of labour' thesis...
Da Rossa
No, people tend to accuse the neighbourhood for their internal failure. This is nonsense. Communism, as an idea, has not a flaw in terms of worldwide acceptance, but it's internally inconsistent.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
No, the problem is that communism cannot survive in isolation where you have powerful capitalist states in opposition. Any state that tries to implement a 'true' version of communism is immediately going to be up against capitalism. Now, when it comes to things such as international trade, then the proper communist system (being based on non-exploitation of the labour force) is going to run into difficulties with capitalist states (being based on the opposite).

Blame communism's problems on capitalism... brilliant.
Really, though I disagree with you, I must applaud the tactics.
Vrythramax
@ocalhoun

You must admit that what Bikerman said was at least partially accurate. Given that the two sides are so opposed it's only reasonable to assume they would be in "competition" with each other. In any competition only one side can win...and usually at the cost of the other.

I hate to paraphrase, but there can be only one
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
No, the problem is that communism cannot survive in isolation where you have powerful capitalist states in opposition. Any state that tries to implement a 'true' version of communism is immediately going to be up against capitalism. Now, when it comes to things such as international trade, then the proper communist system (being based on non-exploitation of the labour force) is going to run into difficulties with capitalist states (being based on the opposite).
Marx, of course, theorised that capitalism was a necessary 'stage' before communism. He appears to have got this analysis badly wrong - based on many factors, including the rise of the 'middle class', and more widely his invalid 'value of labour' thesis...
Brilliant points. But a macro reason also why a "true" version of communism could never be implemented in any one country either. It would mean that you would have to start from point zero, and erase everything that existed before, including the way people were thinking before. So maybe the point of capitalism could have been true in a way, as perhaps Marx thought that capitalism was so bad that finally it would get to erase everything that existed?
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
Brilliant points. But a macro reason also why a "true" version of communism could never be implemented in any one country either. It would mean that you would have to start from point zero, and erase everything that existed before, including the way people were thinking before. So maybe the point of capitalism could have been true in a way, as perhaps Marx thought that capitalism was so bad that finally it would get to erase everything that existed?


did I take a wrong turn and end up in the Philosophy Forum by mistake? If you wipe out people thoughts before the event, wouldn't it only be a matter of time till they found out something else existed? Your not wiping out the other plans.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Brilliant points. But a macro reason also why a "true" version of communism could never be implemented in any one country either. It would mean that you would have to start from point zero, and erase everything that existed before, including the way people were thinking before. So maybe the point of capitalism could have been true in a way, as perhaps Marx thought that capitalism was so bad that finally it would get to erase everything that existed?


did I take a wrong turn and end up in the Philosophy Forum by mistake? If you wipe out people thoughts before the event, wouldn't it only be a matter of time till they found out something else existed? Your not wiping out the other plans.
That is an excellent point Max, although since we generally have to do with sheeple, maybe the Government may be able to prime them in a certain direction, making the alternatives into impossibilities?

You're right of course, we're now getting philosophical.
Related topics
Natural Disaters, Charity, and the Purpose of Government
What did Bush lie about?
Poll on France
Stanley "Tookie" Williams
anti-gay rights mayor is gay?
NAZIS
Discussion ABOUT “State your Poly Philosophy! 1000 FRIH$”
The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever
For anyone who lives in NYC this a must see!
Global Warming? are we at worlds end?
IBM profiting from the Nazi in 2nd world war
NYC's Mayor Bloomberg and Term Limits
Things only a Republican could believe
NYC Mayor's Race: 1st Test for Obama
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.