The US Presidential Election

EdelBrock wrote:

Shellshocker wrote: I have a bad feeling that McCain will win largely because too many Americans aren't ready to vote for a black (well, he's half black, but that's aparently the same as being 100% black) guy, not to mention a guy with a Muslim sounding name. Scary!

While there are those that won't vote for the guy because he is black, I do think there is also a good portion of people that will vote for him simply because he IS black. People want to be part of a movement and to be part of history, so that they can later say "I remember voting for the 1st black president"... plus it gives many whites proof to thier friends and loved ones that they are not racist "See, I voted for Obama so I can't be racist!"

I have a feeling the latter group is larger.

Wow, really? that strikes me as very strange. There are lots and lots of people who won't vote for a black guy - doesn't the polling convince you of that? Four years ago at this time Kerry was trouncing Bush in the polls. Obama is barely ahead, even behind if you believe some pollsters. Why do you think the Republicans ran that commercial with Paris Hilton et al - white women, black guy - tapping into old fears and stereotypes. Or the commercial with Obama shooting a baskteball in Kuwait - one anonymous McCain staffer agreed in a recent article I read that it's very purposeful - basketball is a black man's game and if Obama was sinking a putt., they never would have run it because golf is a white man's game, Tiger Woods notwithstanding. Heck, even Bill Clinton pushed the racial line with Obama.

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote:

Tex wrote:

Knuckles wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote:

Lets have a look at how the good ol' USA has done with a good ol' terrorist/cimmunist hater in office.

6- Increase in homicide

??? Seriously WTF? How does Bush have anything to do with this? He has no control over local governments... this makes absolutely no sense...

Um, how about his and every redneck's policy on guns. Give everyone an M-16. That'll work.

Dear Knuckles,

Perhaps you familiarize yourself with our founding documents. Our "policy on guns" is codifed in the Constitution.

Thanks,

Tex

Ah yes. The Consitution.

Just between me and you, "Tex", on a personal note, I wouldnt wipe my arse with your constitution. Written by hicks in the 18th century, continually amended for the most part by morons and defended by geeks in the 21st century who seems to think that the 18th century hicks were right back then and would still be right today.

Right. BTW, why so serious? I'll just continue to be happy living in the greatest country the world has ever known. :)

Well, sleep tight with that gun under your pillow. You never know when they are coming, apart from that its soon.

Shakin' Baker wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Shellshocker wrote: I have a bad feeling that McCain will win largely because too many Americans aren't ready to vote for a black (well, he's half black, but that's aparently the same as being 100% black) guy, not to mention a guy with a Muslim sounding name. Scary!

While there are those that won't vote for the guy because he is black, I do think there is also a good portion of people that will vote for him simply because he IS black. People want to be part of a movement and to be part of history, so that they can later say "I remember voting for the 1st black president"... plus it gives many whites proof to thier friends and loved ones that they are not racist "See, I voted for Obama so I can't be racist!"

I have a feeling the latter group is larger.

Wow, really? that strikes me as very strange. There are lots and lots of people who won't vote for a black guy - doesn't the polling convince you of that? Four years ago at this time Kerry was trouncing Bush in the polls. Obama is barely ahead, even behind if you believe some pollsters. Why do you think the Republicans ran that commercial with Paris Hilton et al - white women, black guy - tapping into old fears and stereotypes. Or the commercial with Obama shooting a baskteball in Kuwait - one anonymous McCain staffer agreed in a recent article I read that it's very purposeful - basketball is a black man's game and if Obama was sinking a putt., they never would have run it because golf is a white man's game, Tiger Woods notwithstanding. Heck, even Bill Clinton pushed the racial line with Obama.

So, why, in your opinion, did B. Hussein's advance team recently remove two headscarved muslim women from sitting behind the podium of a campaign event?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/06/two-muslim-wome.html

Just curious.

Simple. Because the right wing media and some of the more firebrand campaigners on the McCain team would have used it against him.

You know, for supposedly "the greatest country on earth", its rather fucking idiotic, childish and downright foolish that a sizeable amount of the population believe that Obama is a Muslim.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote: I do like how EdelBrock described Obama as "far left" yet in this country there's talk of how he would be a Conservative.

yeah, the entire US political spectrum is right of center.

More correctly Liam, the media has been discussing how McCain has started to change some of his policies from his normal middle of the ground, to a more right stance to pick up votes in the conservative party. Obama has been going more right to reach the center, so to get the less liberal and middle of the ground Democrats votes. His voting record in the Senate has been so far-left, he is considered one of the most liberal senators in the Senate.

And mathematically, if the WHOLE spetrum is right of center, how could that be? It would then, be in fact the center, not right or left of anything.... just because yer left of the center doesn't mean you are the center point Pope

Shakin' Baker wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Shellshocker wrote: I have a bad feeling that McCain will win largely because too many Americans aren't ready to vote for a black (well, he's half black, but that's aparently the same as being 100% black) guy, not to mention a guy with a Muslim sounding name. Scary!

While there are those that won't vote for the guy because he is black, I do think there is also a good portion of people that will vote for him simply because he IS black. People want to be part of a movement and to be part of history, so that they can later say "I remember voting for the 1st black president"... plus it gives many whites proof to thier friends and loved ones that they are not racist "See, I voted for Obama so I can't be racist!"

I have a feeling the latter group is larger.

Wow, really? that strikes me as very strange. There are lots and lots of people who won't vote for a black guy - doesn't the polling convince you of that? Four years ago at this time Kerry was trouncing Bush in the polls. Obama is barely ahead, even behind if you believe some pollsters. Why do you think the Republicans ran that commercial with Paris Hilton et al - white women, black guy - tapping into old fears and stereotypes. Or the commercial with Obama shooting a baskteball in Kuwait - one anonymous McCain staffer agreed in a recent article I read that it's very purposeful - basketball is a black man's game and if Obama was sinking a putt., they never would have run it because golf is a white man's game, Tiger Woods notwithstanding. Heck, even Bill Clinton pushed the racial line with Obama.

The Presidential election might be different than the primaries, but I think the mass turn out of people voting for Obama and Clinton was driven by people wanting to be part of history... there really is lttle difference between the twos policies, yet the furvor over the whole issue came down to, did you want the first woman president -or- the first black president. It got all of their bases excited. Don't think Hilary and Obama played thhis card... Obama used it last week in his speech about change, adding that he doesn't look like guys on the dollar bills... a strike at people that are racist, yes, but also to excite others to want to vote just because he IS black.... as that somehow embodies 'change'.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: What specific Republican 'operatives' do you speak of? I've heard this talk before from others, but no one has shown me any substantiave proof that this is in fact happening...

Playing the Pollyanna isn't a very becoming role for you. Google "B. Hussein," and compare what you find with Tex's contribution to the discussion of "the issues."

I don't listen or watch news or political shows if it is strictly a right or left side hammering the other side. I try to watch the most unbiased shows to get my news, so I have never heard the B. Hussian thing until now. I have heard of people talk about the republican machine trying to paint a picture like this, but never saw any proof... granted I never devoted any time in trying to find it either. It is deplorable to try to paint a candidate that way. Each side has thier own way of going about doing this (Obama's "McCain would be another Bush for 4 more years" is a good example). I do my best to ignore these things, as they detract from the real issues.

I actually would vote for a Dem president, if I thought it would be the best overall for the US. I actually try to look at both candidates each night and weigh them... McCain just happens to come out on top for me.

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote: Simple. Because the right wing media and some of the more firebrand campaigners on the McCain team would have used it against him.

So what if they did? What happened to Mr. Diversity, Mr. Inclussion, Mr. Yes We Can? It shows that B. Hussein is nothing more than just another politician. Changey-changey hope-hope has gone right out the window.

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote: I do like how EdelBrock described Obama as "far left" yet in this country there's talk of how he would be a Conservative.

yeah, the entire US political spectrum is right of center.

More correctly Liam, the media has been discussing how McCain has started to change some of his policies from his normal middle of the ground, to a more right stance to pick up votes in the conservative party. Obama has been going more right to reach the center, so to get the less liberal and middle of the ground Democrats votes. His voting record in the Senate has been so far-left, he is considered one of the most liberal senators in the Senate.

And mathematically, if the WHOLE spetrum is right of center, how could that be? It would then, be in fact the center, not right or left of anything.... just because yer left of the center doesn't mean you are the center point Pope

Open any Political Science 101 textbook and it will tell you that the American political spectrum is far less diverse and skewing increasingly toward conservatism than the political spectrum in most other comparable nations. A heavily corporatized media prevents the spread of all but the most centrist opinions in this country--but even our centrist positions are right-of-center globally. Fact.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote: I do like how EdelBrock described Obama as "far left" yet in this country there's talk of how he would be a Conservative.

yeah, the entire US political spectrum is right of center.

More correctly Liam, the media has been discussing how McCain has started to change some of his policies from his normal middle of the ground, to a more right stance to pick up votes in the conservative party. Obama has been going more right to reach the center, so to get the less liberal and middle of the ground Democrats votes. His voting record in the Senate has been so far-left, he is considered one of the most liberal senators in the Senate.

And mathematically, if the WHOLE spetrum is right of center, how could that be? It would then, be in fact the center, not right or left of anything.... just because yer left of the center doesn't mean you are the center point Pope

Open any Political Science 101 textbook and it will tell you that the American political spectrum is far less diverse and skewing increasingly toward conservatism than the political spectrum in most other comparable nations. A heavily corporatized media prevents the spread of all but the most centrist opinions in this country--but even our centrist positions are right-of-center globally. Fact.

right-of-center globally, you are probably right there. and at what point was it far more diverse? There have been always two far sides with a center that stands middle ground starting with Jefferson and Hamilton.
The point still is that the center is the center, just because a textbook you read was written by a left-wing author that is unhappy where the center is doesn't change it is where the center is.

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote: I do like how EdelBrock described Obama as "far left" yet in this country there's talk of how he would be a Conservative.

yeah, the entire US political spectrum is right of center.

More correctly Liam, the media has been discussing how McCain has started to change some of his policies from his normal middle of the ground, to a more right stance to pick up votes in the conservative party. Obama has been going more right to reach the center, so to get the less liberal and middle of the ground Democrats votes. His voting record in the Senate has been so far-left, he is considered one of the most liberal senators in the Senate.

And mathematically, if the WHOLE spetrum is right of center, how could that be? It would then, be in fact the center, not right or left of anything.... just because yer left of the center doesn't mean you are the center point Pope

Open any Political Science 101 textbook and it will tell you that the American political spectrum is far less diverse and skewing increasingly toward conservatism than the political spectrum in most other comparable nations. A heavily corporatized media prevents the spread of all but the most centrist opinions in this country--but even our centrist positions are right-of-center globally. Fact.

right-of-center globally, you are probably right there. and at what point was it far more diverse? There have been always two far sides with a center that stands middle ground starting with Jefferson and Hamilton.
The point still is that the center is the center, just because a textbook you read was written by a left-wing author that is unhappy where the center is doesn't change it is where the center is.

The author wasn't left-wing, just pointing out the truth about where the US political spectrum is. Apparently the rest of the world is a delusion created by far-leftists, but you can pretend the rest of the world doesn't really exist. Makes it that much easier to bomb the shit out of brown people.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote: I do like how EdelBrock described Obama as "far left" yet in this country there's talk of how he would be a Conservative.

yeah, the entire US political spectrum is right of center.

More correctly Liam, the media has been discussing how McCain has started to change some of his policies from his normal middle of the ground, to a more right stance to pick up votes in the conservative party. Obama has been going more right to reach the center, so to get the less liberal and middle of the ground Democrats votes. His voting record in the Senate has been so far-left, he is considered one of the most liberal senators in the Senate.

And mathematically, if the WHOLE spetrum is right of center, how could that be? It would then, be in fact the center, not right or left of anything.... just because yer left of the center doesn't mean you are the center point Pope

Open any Political Science 101 textbook and it will tell you that the American political spectrum is far less diverse and skewing increasingly toward conservatism than the political spectrum in most other comparable nations. A heavily corporatized media prevents the spread of all but the most centrist opinions in this country--but even our centrist positions are right-of-center globally. Fact.

right-of-center globally, you are probably right there. and at what point was it far more diverse? There have been always two far sides with a center that stands middle ground starting with Jefferson and Hamilton.
The point still is that the center is the center, just because a textbook you read was written by a left-wing author that is unhappy where the center is doesn't change it is where the center is.

The author wasn't left-wing, just pointing out the truth about where the US political spectrum is. Apparently the rest of the world is a delusion created by far-leftists, but you can pretend the rest of the world doesn't really exist. Makes it that much easier to bomb the shit out of brown people.

*Bosnian Serb looking at skin*

"Funny, I don't look brown."

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

coney island baby wrote:

Tex wrote:

B. Hussein's lap long

seriously fuck off. Say his name correctly.And i guess you will be saying he's muslim. Fear mongering. Typical

What do you expect Republicans to do? Debate the issues?

That would be a first.

"IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THIS YEARS US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND DONT VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA, YOU ARE A CUNT."

And I suppose you consider the above missive from the thread starter to be debating the issues?

We both know your campaign of fear and disinformation predates Liam's deft political analysis.

What would we call your response, anyway? A red-herring?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

coney island baby wrote:

Tex wrote:

B. Hussein's lap long

seriously fuck off. Say his name correctly.And i guess you will be saying he's muslim. Fear mongering. Typical

What do you expect Republicans to do? Debate the issues?

That would be a first.

"IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THIS YEARS US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND DONT VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA, YOU ARE A CUNT."

And I suppose you consider the above missive from the thread starter to be debating the issues?

We both know your campaign of fear and disinformation predates Liam's deft political analysis.

What would we call your response, anyway? A red-herring?

"...deft political analysis."

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

coney island baby wrote:

Tex wrote:

B. Hussein's lap long

seriously fuck off. Say his name correctly.And i guess you will be saying he's muslim. Fear mongering. Typical

What do you expect Republicans to do? Debate the issues?

That would be a first.

"IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THIS YEARS US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND DONT VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA, YOU ARE A CUNT."

And I suppose you consider the above missive from the thread starter to be debating the issues?

We both know your campaign of fear and disinformation predates Liam's deft political analysis.

What would we call your response, anyway? A red-herring?

"...deft political analysis."

Is that for real?

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: oooh...new ad from the McCain campaign!!!

OBAMA IS BONO?!?!?!

It is true though....

Tex wrote:

Knuckles wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Slippin Jimmy Jamma wrote:

Lets have a look at how the good ol' USA has done with a good ol' terrorist/cimmunist hater in office.

6- Increase in homicide

??? Seriously WTF? How does Bush have anything to do with this? He has no control over local governments... this makes absolutely no sense...

Um, how about his and every redneck's policy on guns. Give everyone an M-16. That'll work.

Dear Knuckles,

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with our founding documents. Our "policy on guns" is codifed in the Constitution.

Thanks,

Tex

And that makes it right? Wait, if we look at the ORIGINAL document then Obama would only count as 3/5s of a candidate...

Because it was written over two hundred years ago, it makes it right. Back when there were no machine guns.

Hey now. We Americans need semi-automatic weapons to protect us from the vicious bunny rabbits running around over here.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

coney island baby wrote:

Tex wrote:

B. Hussein's lap long

seriously fuck off. Say his name correctly.And i guess you will be saying he's muslim. Fear mongering. Typical

What do you expect Republicans to do? Debate the issues?

That would be a first.

"IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THIS YEARS US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND DONT VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA, YOU ARE A CUNT."

And I suppose you consider the above missive from the thread starter to be debating the issues?

We both know your campaign of fear and disinformation predates Liam's deft political analysis.

What would we call your response, anyway? A red-herring?

From Mark Penn - one of Hillary's top advisors and pollster..

""His roots to basic American culture and values are at best limited," Mr. Penn wrote in March 2007. "I cannot imagine America electing a president at a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and values."

There is MUCH more where this came from in this months issue of Atlantic Monthly.

You may want to revisit just who is/was/still-might-in-Denver running the "campaign of fear and disinformation".

A question to our cousins across the pond, what type of coverage on US elections is in your media?

I ask because I talked to my wife today, as she is visiting her parents in Japan. She noted how The media in Japan are only covering Obama. She said by the sounds of it, he was running unopposed and she never heard anything about McCain.

Is there a similar imbalance of coverage in Europe as well?

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

coney island baby wrote:

Tex wrote:

B. Hussein's lap long

seriously fuck off. Say his name correctly.And i guess you will be saying he's muslim. Fear mongering. Typical

What do you expect Republicans to do? Debate the issues?

That would be a first.

"IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THIS YEARS US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND DONT VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA, YOU ARE A CUNT."

And I suppose you consider the above missive from the thread starter to be debating the issues?

We both know your campaign of fear and disinformation predates Liam's deft political analysis.

What would we call your response, anyway? A red-herring?

From Mark Penn - one of Hillary's top advisors and pollster..

""His roots to basic American culture and values are at best limited," Mr. Penn wrote in March 2007. "I cannot imagine America electing a president at a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and values."

There is MUCH more where this came from in this months issue of Atlantic Monthly.

You may want to revisit just who is/was/still-might-in-Denver running the "campaign of fear and disinformation".

Undoubtedly. It's well-known that Billary was running a Republican-style campaign. That fact doesn't mean the Republicans aren't doing it too.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Undoubtedly. It's well-known that Billary was running a Republican-style campaign. That fact doesn't mean the Republicans aren't doing it too.

In all correctness, this type of campaigning started with Alexander Hamilton (Federalist) against Jefferson (Republican), so it is not in fact a republican style campaign:p

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Undoubtedly. It's well-known that Billary was running a Republican-style campaign. That fact doesn't mean the Republicans aren't doing it too.

In all correctness, this type of campaigning started with Alexander Hamilton (Federalist) against Jefferson (Republican), so it is not in fact a republican style campaign:p

Jefferson was not a Republican. He was a Democrat-- in fact, he was one of the founders of the Democratic Party.

Hamilton was a Federalist...the forerunner of the Republican Party.

Anything else you feel like getting wrong today? :p

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Undoubtedly. It's well-known that Billary was running a Republican-style campaign. That fact doesn't mean the Republicans aren't doing it too.

In all correctness, this type of campaigning started with Alexander Hamilton (Federalist) against Jefferson (Republican), so it is not in fact a republican style campaign:p

Jefferson was not a Republican. He was a Democrat-- in fact, he was one of the founders of the Democratic Party.

Hamilton was a Federalist...the forerunner of the Republican Party.

Anything else you feel like getting wrong today? :p

Uhm, no. Jefferson's party was the Republican Party. The Republican Party split during the 1820s, with Andrew Jackson's supporters being the Democratic-Republicans, and the National Republicans (Whigs) being those opposed to Jackson.

Everybody wants to be wrong today...

Jefferson's party was the Democratic-Republican Party. But yes, I'll concede that they often called themselves "Republicans." That notwithstanding, the fact remains they were the party that eventually became the Democratic Party of today-- a fact diametrically opposed to what Edelbrock would have us believe.

And yes, there was a split in the party, with one faction becoming the National Republican Party. This party also drew heavily from former Federalists, and was eventually absorbed into the Whig Party. When the Republican Party was organized, it in turn drew its membership from the Whigs.

Thus, Jefferson was a Democrat, and Hamilton was a Federalist, the forerunner of the Republicans.

:p

ummm... Republicans like Hamilton, I think not. Actually little is left of the Federalists ideals. Hamilton thought we should have a king or very strong central figure that does not need to be voted into office, that people are too stupid to govern themselves... neither side really thinks this way today. It might be argued that there are specific issues that fall in line with the 'people are too stupid to govern themselves' but neither party thinks this outright like Hamilton did.

Plus Jefferson's party is vastly different than Jackson's party (future Democrates of today)... thus the break-up of the Democrat-Republican party.

I personally believe in Jefferson's ideals far more than any party we have today... but in my opinion the Republican party falls more in line with Jefferson ideals than the Dems. A debatable issue since both parties take from Jefferson, and also have issues that are against his ideals.

EdelBrock wrote: ummm... Republicans like Hamilton, I think not. Actually little is left of the Federalists ideals....

Way to miss the point.