Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination 1788
An anonymous reader was one of many who noted that Barack Obama has claimed the Democratic nomination having secured enough delegates and super-delegates to claim victory. Of course, technically this assumes that the supers all vote as they say they will and they are free to change their minds. So no doubt we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.
...but Hillary still won't leave. (Score:5, Informative)
Obama may have the nomination, but someone really ought to tell Hillary. Last night, during her non-concession speech, she stated that she's "making no decisions tonight" [rawstory.com]. Today I heard on NPR that she is "open to the Vice-Presidential spot", even though she may not take it...she "just wants to be considered".
Sweet Zombie Jesus...what will it take to make this woman go away???
Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (Score:5, Funny)
Why should she go away? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton has no practical reason to "go away" - Obama's victory was surprisingly narrow. Over the last few months the Obama campaign lost momentum - Clinton's victories were quite substantial in several key states that would be essential to a Democratic victory (Ohio and Pennsylvania especially).
Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics - Clinton still has a substantial role to play in the election.
Her supporters are bitter about how they perceive Clinton's treatment versus how Obama has been treated by the press. I realize it's anecdotal, but talking to a number of my friends who were ardent Clinton supporters I've become worried that they simply won't vote Democrat due to what they perceive was the unfairness and sexism of the campaign.
Clinton's in a strong position to request the VP slot. If she concedes to Obama then she simply becomes an also-ran, and has no negotiating power.
Re:Why should she go away? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should she go away? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently war comes with Democrats or Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
And Sen. Obama is offering exactly what as an alternative to more war? Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq, despite how many Americans want that (it'll be a bloodbath if we leave now, we're told, as if Iraqi are so busy laying roses at our soldiers and mercenaries' feet). His Iran threat to the Chicago Tribune [socialistworker.org] ("[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action? ... [L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.") and his recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.
As Cindy Sheehan recently reminded us [counterpunch.org], the Democrats have a strong history of war making and a lot to apologize for:
Re:Apparently war comes with Democrats or Republic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should she go away? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should she go away? (Score:5, Insightful)
I say this as a dedicated third-party supporter who thinks that every serious Presidential candidate fielded over the past decade or so has been completely useless, from either major party.
Re:Why should she go away? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
The party is truly split between the two candidates, and for the Obama team to take a small winning margin and run all the way to the general election while ignoring Hillary and keeping her out of the team, it will majorly turn off roughly half of the Democratic Party. The Obama team just wants Hillary to go away, but when she has the support of half the party, how can she just give up and disappear? That would be irresponsible to her supporters.
Another argument that the Obama team has been making for the past few months is that Clinton is ruining Obama's chances in the general election by keeping the election going, and that she's been mean to him with her campaign. The sad thing is that what Hillary has thrown at Obama is nothing compared to what the Republicans will throw at him starting now. If they cannot stand Hillary's attacks, they're going to crumple under McCain and the whole Republican propaganda machine.
It certainly is an interesting time in politics, seeing such a split in the Democratic party. Hopefully it can come together, but it won't happen if Obama just runs fully with it, leaving HIllary in the dust. Or, as you put it, to "make this woman go away".
Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am SO FUCKIGN GLAD its not going to be another 8 years of Clinton -- followed by what, Jeb Bush then Chelsey Clinton?
Bush Sr. and Clinton palling around...
but yeah, study hard, stay away from drugs and out of cyber-porn on the internet and YOU could be President of the United States some day.... pfft
sure.
Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (Score:5, Funny)
Hillary Clinton, America's Psycho Ex-girlfriend
Re:...but Hillary still won't leave. (Score:5, Interesting)
We'll see, of course.
Someone help me with this... (Score:5, Funny)
Its going to be a landslide FOR Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Funny)
what's the price of gas over there?
Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative". (Score:5, Funny)
We will see a black female president who supports communism and is a Debian core developer, before that happens.
Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative". (Score:5, Funny)
are the
Grand Oil Party
Re:The Republican Party is not "conservative". (Score:5, Funny)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
You must live in a reality where everything is black and white. Higher gas prices means fewer gas consumers whilst lower prices brings more consumption. We're witnessing that right now. For envirodems, lower consumption is a GOOD thing not a bad thing.
Moreover, higher gas prices means that other source of energy that are arguably "better" from a sustainability/environmental perspective but previously unworkable given the price of gasoline become much more appealing.
Besides, an increase in domestic production would have such a SMALL impact on the overall cost of gasoline and any impact would be fleetingly short lived. The US simply does not have enough oil reserves to make much of a lasting impact.
Finally, there's a really good argument that we should drain the cheap oil from other places first and keep our oil reserves until a time it actually matters. Using our reserves now would probably not give us a real good return on its value.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
what's the price of gas over there?
In the real world that I live in, I've heard Republicans screaming for increased domestic production and Democrats screaming, "NO!"
At least you have the ability to vote for it. I don't live in the US , so i can't vote for it.
Yet the consequences are for the entire world.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Funny)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Funny)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html [wired.com]
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, if the republicans lose either the religious zealots, warmongers and lobbyist puppets will get purged, or if they have already gathered enough power unto themselves, it will they who are doing the purging. Either way, the republican party is headed for serious trouble if they don't win the next presidential election, which there is every indication that they will not.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
The current crop of politicians have their own agendas, and in many cases, those agendas cross the borders between the party lines, and in some cases, quite far across those borders.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want to help your neighbors, or do you want to force me help your neighbors?
That's the difference between private charity, funded by people who want to donate to it, and government welfare, funded by taxes.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Public education, social responsibility, and the empowerment of all will help you more significantly than isolating yourself from society.
I'm not saying we should go all commie or socialist over here, but a balanced struggle between socialist and capitalist (and many other!) points of view in our government is what keeps it healthy. Falling in the trap of a single party (even a dual party like we have now) reduces our government's health.
-Rick
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we'd see a lot of special interest programs drop of the map because they'd would have to convince the citizens that it's a worthy program as opposed to lobbying government officials. Not to mention I think it would make a lot of people feel like their taxes where actually doing something/going to a good cause as opposed to simply being "taken" by the government for whatever.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't turn my back on the Republicans. They turned their backs on me. I wanted fiscal conservatives. I got spending that made the liberals turn green with envy. I wanted strong foriegn policy. I got a war over non-existant WMDs, which has weakened both our military and our political capital with other nations. I wanted to escape the Democrats fear-mongering. I got Republican fear-mongering.
Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the final straw for me was when Team of Rivals [amazon.com] came out, and all of the neocon pundits essentially ran a smear campaign... against Lincoln!! The Republicans of today are in name only.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Informative)
This is exactly why Hillary lost the game and Obama got it. People in US(and around the world , though irrelevant) were fed up of the status-co politics. They wanted something different and someone who can make a change. As citizens and consumers, people want products which are different. Especially when they realize that the product they have currently(Bush) sucks so bad. Hillary miserably failed to understand this pulse and stuck with same old crap. There is no perceivable difference between Hillary and Bush. The differences are really cosmetic. Iraq is just one example where there is a striking parallel between the policies of Bush/Mcain and Hillary.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, that's what the American government is all about. Right or Left, everybody's stealing from one group and giving it to some others, many of whom haven't earned it in any way. On the left you have the welfare system, which gives free money to poor people, and on the right you have super-rich tax breaks and "back room corporate deals", which gives free money to the fabulously wealthy.
You have two choices - either accept this premise, and decide which system of redistribution you think is "least unfair", or reject it entirely, and work to radically change our government and socio-economic system so that all kinds of involuntary redistribution are unnecessary and impossible to execute.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Most Americans however can't see past the upcoming quarter evidently.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody agrees that we should cut spending (on things that don't benefit them directly usually), but it's my view that we should spend only money that we have. That's how I manage myself and it keeps me happy and those who deal fairly with me happy.
Ever since the rabid warmongering of the paranoid years of Truman we've been digging this deficit hole and it's got to a point where we'll never get out, we'll just collapse one day because everybody's just too short sighted.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
Missouri and Kansas, where I live, are growing, due to a lower tax structure and fewer restrictions on employers.
Ireland has the lowest corporate taxes in the EU, and also has one of the fastest growth rates.
You're right that corporate taxes are a reality of doing business. And they're a reality of doing business...somewhere else too.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
These add up to nearly $1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! The current Population Clock [census.gov] puts the US population at 304,249,871, and the 2000 Census figures [census.gov] report 105,480,101 households. Doing the math, that's $15,168 dollars per year per household. The 2007 poverty level statistics [census.gov] show that $15,168/yr would exceed the poverty level for many family situations WITHOUT ANYONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD HAVING TO WORK A SINGLE HOUR. It also happens to exceed working all 2080 work hours per week at minimum wage BY $3000/year! ($5.85 * 2080 = $12,168).
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
So does Rightism. I'd rather my money went to the homeless alcoholic living under a railway bridge than the CEO of some megacorporation who has just wangled himself a massive tax break.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
The only type of conservatism that currently exists in the republican party is social conservatism, and I'd think that you as a libertarian would have some serious issues with that.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
We have no "left" party in the United States. We have a moderate party with vaguely left leanings and a "conservative" party which really isn't much different except with respect to religious beliefs (currently) and a few other social issues. There is no longer (and hasn't been for a long time) a party of small government and "personal responsibility" that advocates not having social programs. If there was such a party they would have fought much harder to abolish Social Security, amongst many other programs. They wouldn't have instituted a "no child left behind" policy that brings the standard down for the whole so that a few can be pushed through the system whether they deserve to be or not.
Back to your point, "leftism" isn't bad, it's just not based entirely on greed. In fact, leftism, in theory, is getting back to the family unit, and extending that to helping people not directly related. The whole "we're only as strong as our weakest link" thing. It works on a small scale, but is unwieldy on a large scale, which is the real problem.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Informative)
That's the issue many people have with government welfare programs, they don't provide much incentive for people to get off it.
Which do you think is better? Donating $50 to a charity that helps the poor, that is more likely to succeed at getting them out of their situations, and being able to write off the $50 for taxes, or not getting that write-off and have the government spend your $50 on people that probably won't ever leave the welfare system?
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got to be kidding me. This is the #1 reason that I can't really be a libertarian. Altruism and having people "take care of the poor" on their own time is a fantastic idea, except that it DOESN'T WORK. Human Beings are assholes, and most would as soon kick a guy in the gutter before giving him a dollar, much less pick him up and help him find a job. Just admit that you don't give jack sh*t about people who through luck or mental illness are in a bad situation.
If you quit the welfare program tomorrow I guarantee you crime would rise through the roof and local charities wouldn't be able to do anything more than they already do. How do I know? Because I volunteer all the time, and most charities (especially for the homeless and battered women shelters) are full to the TILT every day, and have to turn away people. It really is sad.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Informative)
That leaves 27% who are on it for 2 to 5 years, and only 20% who are on it over 5 years. The debates about this shit are so far divorced from reality anymore it is driving me crazy. THE US DOES NOT HAVE A WELFARE PROBLEM. For the most part it is working exactly as it should - helping people to become self-reliant.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for demonstrating once more that libertarianism is about childish selfishness at its base. What magical fairy land do you live in where everyone is born with the exact same opportunities?
Protip: we are a society, and without that society those who "earned" would have nothing. A society doesn't survive by kicking the less fortunate in the nuts. For every greedy welfare moocher (which I'm guessing you imagine make up the majority of the people on welfare) out there there are a hundred families who have fallen on hard times because the parents' employers care more about profit than about people.
Government exists to serve and protect the people. All of them. I suggest you get over yourself and get used to it.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a "have not" then you understand the concept of debt and how big a hole the republican party dug fiscally, how do you think we will pay that debt in the future? You can bet on higher taxes or taxes on more goods and services. They took from everyone and spent the money frivolously and continue to do so without remorse. I'll add that a lot of that money left the United States.
I wish I could say the democrats behaved differently but they don't, they just spent it on different things. I'll grant that democrats tend to spend it on things that actually help domestically though.
Modern democrats have a much better track record for getting us back into a sane budget and thats really what we need right now.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the Democrats were the ones to pass a balanced budget under Clinton. With the Republicans in control they got us into a very expensive war we can't possibly pay for. What do you think is going to happen with all that debt? You don't think that's going to force someone, probably a democrat to raise taxes to get us back to some form of fiscal responsibility? Let us also not forget that under Bush the whole department of homeland security was created making government even bigger and costing us even more money so I fail to see how your statement has any modern relevance from that last 20 years.
Prior to Reagan you would have had a point.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
And how much were you paying for gas 8 years ago?
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
As an outsider looking in (I live in Canada), I'm amazed at how little the American media seems to discuss the issue of the federal and state deficits, and the national debt.
I would argue that perhaps the media considers it a 'complicated issue' but it shouldn't be - All you need to do is draw analogies to credit cards or mortgages and most people would 'get it'. In my opinon, the fact that the American nation-state is willing to simply offload their spending upon the nation's children is criminal. You guys need to either a) accept that the kind of spending you demand from your government(s) needs to be funded from somewhere and accept higher taxes or b) accept that spending needs to be deeply cut. You can't have it both ways.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Informative)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Informative)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
It also intended to destroy Iraq's infrastructure and then rebuild it using Bush/Cheney linked contractors paid for by Iraq's oil (oil that would not hit the market and lower prices).
Gas is now approaching $5 per gallon: mission accomplished!
Did you really think an oil man, albeit a failed one, was trying to obtain a new oil source to provide US consumers with lower prices? He profits from selling oil, and profits more from selling oil at higher prices.
Invading Iraq wasn't about creating an oil colony, it was about empowering Bush's oil partners, including the Saudi bin Ladens who benefitted so much from pulling rival oil from Iraq (a rival secular state that didn't practice the same form of Islam) off the market.
It also wasn't about containing radical Islam. Bush converted Iraq from a secular state that was an enemy of Saudi terrorists into a radically fire breathing terrorist training camp with groups that are now supportive of Al Qaeda and/or ready to plot their own attacks on the US and any foreigners in the area.
Again, Mission Accomplished! The world is now safer for Bush/Saudi oil profits, Cheney's military contractors, fundamentalist terrorists, US police state fascism, and higher energy costs are helping to subsidize everything.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
You may be right that Obama can't win, but in times like this I think sometimes you have to just roll the dice and go for it otherwise nothing changes.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the counterpoint is that attitudes such as yours result in stagnation. There can be no change if those who would support change abandon their causes.
Even if Obama loses, the attention his campaign has been getting (and will get) will make it that much easier for the next candidate to break through the bigotry.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the counterpoint is that attitudes such as yours result in stagnation. There can be no change if those who would support change abandon their causes.
In fact, the dean who I went up against told me something that I haven't forgotten "Its a big ship and if you want to turn it you have to slow it down first." So with a ship the size of a country, unless you want to pick up guns and force change, change takes time.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but if she only cares about being elected in 2012, the best thing for her to do is to stay in as long as possible so as to reduce Obama's chances in the general election, thereby saving herself from the nearly impossible task of wresting the Democrat nomination from a sitting president.
Unfortunately, the Clintons very often seem to default to the most politically expedient course of action, so this wouldn't surprise me.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish that I could agree with you here, but I can't. Of the people I come into contact with who usually vote Democrat and are white (generally labor union types, government union employees and folks on the dole), most are willing to totally ignore the fact that they have the most to gain from Obama winning and yet will vote against him because they're convinced that he will do things like legalize black men raping white women
I realize that the above was something of an overstatement but I guess that I am reacting to the frustration of dealing with how to respond to the sheer hostility towards minorities that I deal with constantly. Example within the past month include:
-A neighbor who refers to the Starlings that live in his eaves as "nigger birds."
-Another neighbor who regaled me with stories of a weekend camping trip with his cop friends that including a fellow camper shouting "white power" as my neighbor arrived.
-A co-worker who said that she voted in the primary for the first time (age 50) so "that we could keep America from being overrun by niggers."
I sincerely wish that I were exaggerating, but, sadly, I'm not. And considering that my conscience and lack of good sense causes me to almost always rebuke people for this sort of thing, I can only wonder what these people say to each other in private.
But maybe it's because I live in the Midwest and people are supposedly more racist here, but my many conversations with people in other parts of the country have done nothing to disabuse me of the notion that this is very widespread.
Great, now I've gone and depressed myself...
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think that democrat bullshit is any better? Neither party serves the interests of the people in this country.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is that it sucks that the government that we've got isn't as concerned with the citizens as it should be, but unless you've got some brilliant way to change it, we just need to work with what we've got, and make the best of it. Whatever the motivations of the democrats or the republicans are, they do tend to do some things differently, and there's certain areas where the goals of each party might align with my personal goals. What a senator in DC gets out of that whole deal might be completely different from what I get out of it, but that doesn't mean that the end result doesn't affect me and that I can't have an opinion on it.
It might be as simple as drawing up a list of the pros and cons of some of the basic direction that each party can be expected to go in when you see how it might affect you. Because it will affect you. Even if you believe that everyone at the top is motivated purely by greed, their selfishness leads them in different directions from each other, and one of those directions is bound to be more useful to you than the others.
He's a Democrat, so who he is doesn't matter now (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, Obama would be demonized with any name, and regardless of his hue. No matter who he is, if he's a D and he's running, then he'll be the "single most liberal member of Congress" since Che Guavera or whoever, an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America, will have gotten a "free pass" from our "overwhelmingly liberal media," would put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists, "emboldening our enemies," etc. It's the same script, every time, all the time. The Republicans always use the same words to galvanize their base, because, well, it works. Who or what Obama is or isn't has little to do with how the Republicans will vote.
elitism (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Bush's country accent is fake--he's not really a country boy, not really a rancher, etc. But the populism button keeps on spitting out the votes. As cynical as I am, I still find it depressing.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Funny)
Leaving gender out of the issue, how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Hillary Rodham Clinton? A name that rings with the sounds of two recent so called enemies (Dennis Rodman is one, you figure out the other). See how stupid that sounds, troll?
I'd say the opposite is true (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless I am what you might call a moderate conservative. I have and will certainly cross party lines. I vote based on who I think will do the best job, not a D or an R. So I'm the kind of voter that the democrats need to be after. In my case, I'll almost certainly vote for Obama if he's nominated. If not, I'll probably vote for McCain. I don't like Clinton at all. She seems very totalitarian, in that she thinks she knows what's best for the economy, for you personally (her video game stance for example) and so on. That is opposite to what I think. I think in general government should try and stay out of things, when practical. They should be a force that guides the economy, not controls it, and that ensures people have freedoms but that they don't infringe on others, not that hands out a list of what is right and wrong.
So for me, Obama is good. I don't agree with him 100%, but then I don't agree with anyone but myself 100%. However over all I like his policies, and I think he'll be good for the nation. Clinton, no, sorry, I won't go that route. While I don't think McCain is as good a candidate as Obama, I think he's better than Clinton.
I'm not the only person I know who's the same way either. I have a number of friends with similar political views and the thing I hear is "I hope Obama wins because I'll vote for him, but if not I'll vote for McCain."
Hardcore republicans are a lost cause. They'll vote R no matter what. So while they might hate Obama more, it doesn't matter since they won't vote for Hillary either. They are all R all the time. The people who matter are those who come down on the conservative side, but aren't caught up in party dogma.
Now I have no empirical evidence as to who will vote what way, but this assumption that Clinton has the ability win win republicans where as Obama doesn't is just silly. Neither will win the party voters, and I and my friends are proof that there are at least some out there who feel Obama yes, Clinton no. We probably aren't the only ones either.
No candidate is going to have a walk in the park this time around, all of them have something that a non-trivial portion of America has a problem with. However that doesn't mean Obama has no chance, in fact I'd say it is quite the opposite.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
He's only 37, is Indian but converted from Hindu to catholic a while back, has run many businesses, was a Congressman and then won a special election to be Governor of Louisiana.
He's younger than Obama, equally not white, and has actually done a thing or two that are worth while.
Frankly, I'd be totally OK with him as President -- then again, I am still trying to figure out if I hate McCain or Obama more.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe the USA should be a beacon of hope and civilization, not a crowd of barbarians that so much of the world as been for so long.
That issue alone is enough to decide who I vote for.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
What's that? Oh...well that's not torture.
Oh and that? Hm...well see, that wasn't technically "the US".
Convenient how that works, huh?
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is McCain's weak spot. He spent the late 90's and early 2000's building up a GREAT maveric image, heck, John Kerry talked to him about a VP seat in the 2004 election! But since then, McCain has flip flopped on almost every stance he took out of line with the Republican party. Campaign finance reform, Gay marrage, Torture, even the war he has been pretty fishie on.
John McCain from 1999 would have been a great option instead of Bush. John McCain from 2003 would have been a great option instead of Bush. But at this point, he is so manipulated and has gone back on so many of his 'maveric' stances, that he's losing the independant voters and me along with them.
-Rick
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Informative)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, for some unknown reason, a large portion of the people in the U.S. equate a person's religion with who they are. It's as if one of the reasons we broke from you folks has been completely forgotten.
Apparently, people believe that if you believe in some man-made myth of a supreme being who sits high in the sky watching everything you do, who tells you you must follow a set of rules they have set down or else you will be condemned to an eternity of pain and torture yet, who still cares and loves you*, you are somehow more worthy of an elected office than the atheistic heathens who do not believe in a supreme being.
And we can all see what a great job those religious-minded folks who have been elected to office have done.
*My apologies to George Carlin fans for not quoting his diatribe accurately. I just wanted to get the gist of his comments.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. I think the opening lines of The Communist Manifesto may have an effect along these lines: "Communists think that religion is a drug and they condemn in. We need to be high on it all the time if we are NOT Communists"
Cheers!
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
McCain: no change
Romney: no change
Huckabee: Had the best 'Obama-like' way of speaking (refreshing after 8 years of Bushisms), but unfortunately was the christian-religion candidate.
Paul: In general, most people can agree with him, but the man couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. You can have the best ideas in the world, but if you can't convince anyone, then even if elected you won't change a thing.
To be honest, I don't know if Obama will change anything internal to the United States. He IS a Democrat afterall, and we have no reason to expect him to be anything other than a Democrat just as we have no reason to expect McCain to be anything but a Republican.
He will, however, be our best chance to repair our international reputation. That, at least, is something that I can be thankful for even if I disagree with most of his policy.
I just wish that I could vote for him.
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Informative)
Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either (Score:5, Funny)
Are you suggesting that the spell chequer was somehow wrong?
Don't you know that the Computer is your friend, and any deviation from its approved spelling can lead to your being used as reactor shielding?
Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either (Score:5, Funny)
Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either (Score:5, Funny)
Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either (Score:5, Funny)
Re:People don't seem to learn from reading, either (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just So Yo Know What You're Buying This Time (Score:5, Informative)
A choice quote from your link: "Watching the never-ending spectacle of glassy-eyed white girls gone wild for this mulatto, and knowing the Negro libido and psyche, one finds it almost impossible to believe that he has never taken advantage of his opportunities."
Would you care to renounce that author?
Re:People don't learn from history (Score:5, Funny)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Re:Race relations in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spelling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Please explain us ... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't need to win one of the primaries to run for president, but you need to win one if you want the support of one of the major political parties. For various reasons, it's currently not particularly practical for a candidate to win the general election unless they are a candidate from one of the two main parties.
The two major parties in the US are the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party creates the specific rules that are used in their own primaries to select their candidates. The democrats, for various reasons, have come up with a complicated system that not only has regular delegates, but also has "super-delegates." Supers are usually (but not always) individuals considered particularly important to the democratic party (elected officials, party leaders, etc), and they are free to put their delegate vote towards whichever candidate they wish. Basically, they're individuals who's vote counts for way more than the average person's. Their role is restricted purely to the democratic primary however, in a general election, their vote counts for no more than anyone else's.
That's just a brief overview, without the history of why super-delegates exist, but there's plenty of information out there to be found on that.
Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a quaint assumption backed up by no rationale whatsoever. I am a taxpayer and a US citizen, so I have every right to persuade other members of society to effect changes I desire. Voting is a right, not a gateway to other rights. On its own, it also happens to be the least effective method of bringing about change. I would rather use my freedom of speech to persuade the public to bring about a candidate that will uphold everyone's rights rather than trample them. Until such a candidate exists, there will be no acceptable choice for president.
Re:What kind of message? (Score:5, Informative)
Funny how you touch on shit that doesn't matter in the least, yet leave out the one thing that really does paint Obama as an elitist, insensitive bastard: him going on about how people only like guns/religion because they're poor, a month or two ago.
was it really that condescending? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, here's the quote:
I guess you and I just read things differently, because I got a bit more nuance out of his statements, and "people only like guns/religion because they're poor" doesn't quite capture it. Seeing the economic viability of your community crumble, seeing the way of life of your parents crumble, can be a polarizing experience, and yes, people cling to things, things they consider symbolic of their way of life. I don't see anything especially patronizing about saying that people are pissed off and that when they're pissed off the symbolic things matter more than they might in times of prosperity.
Re:What kind of message? (Score:5, Insightful)
He did NOT say "people cling to religion and guns because they're poor" you spin-monkey shrill a-hole.
Here's a quote so you can stop spreading that bullshit
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Jesus christ all ready. All he basically said was that they're living in dried up commuinities that keep getting passed over by the government even though they're promised relief, which of course frustrates these people (eventually leading to becoming bitter against the government) and they turn to ("cling") their hobbies and beliefs to express their frustration.
Take your obnoxious right-wing out-of-context political spin and shove it up your ass.
Re:Since when he is black? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
What part of "black" did you not understand?