OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:31 pm

Read this - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=91181127 (also audio if you don't want to read it). My jaw dropped at several points when I heard it this morning, in particular

"The world's not ready for a black president," he said. He isn't sure how to explain what has happened so far, but he is sure of how it will end: "They will kill him, assassinate him. I thought they were going to ... during the primaries."

Lots of paranoia in the black community, and lots of claims of racism. No doubt that exists still, but IMO not on the instutional level some claim. But hey, I'm just a white boy so what do I know.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:01 pm

"So many people of non-color have voted for him. I was kind of blown away by that,"

IMO this is the best part of that piece. My son can now truly see that the same country that put his grandfather through the horrific "Jim Crow" laws has now elected a black presidential nominee. What's really cool is my father has lived long enough to see it.

My dads a Conservative Republican but he's walking with a little pep in his step today.

He called and told me 13 percent of the population could'nt pull this off. He's right. I am happy for him!

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:26 pm

JackDog wrote:
"So many people of non-color have voted for him. I was kind of blown away by that,"
IMO this is the best part of that piece. My son can now truly see that the same country that put his grandfather through the horrific "Jim Crow" laws has now elected a black presidential nominee. What's really cool is my father has lived long enough to see it.

My dads a Conservative Republican but he's walking with a little pep in his step today. He called and told me 13 percent of the population could'nt pull this off. He's right. I am happy for him!

So now I'm a "person of non-color"? I find that racist!!!!

seriously....the guy is HALF BLACK and HALF WHITE. How does 1/2 white + 1/2 black = black? I don't get it. Someone needs to come up with a "PC" name for this, like Caucafrican American or something....

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:50 pm

JackB1 wrote:
JackDog wrote:
"So many people of non-color have voted for him. I was kind of blown away by that,"
IMO this is the best part of that piece. My son can now truly see that the same country that put his grandfather through the horrific "Jim Crow" laws has now elected a black presidential nominee. What's really cool is my father has lived long enough to see it.

My dads a Conservative Republican but he's walking with a little pep in his step today. He called and told me 13 percent of the population could'nt pull this off. He's right. I am happy for him!
So now I'm a "person of non-color"? I find that racist!!!!
seriously....the guy is HALF BLACK and HALF WHITE. How does 1/2 white + 1/2 black = black? I don't get it. Someone needs to come up with a "PC" name for this, like Caucafrican American or something....

Caucafrican.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:35 pm

JackDog wrote:
JackB1 wrote:
JackDog wrote: IMO this is the best part of that piece. My son can now truly see that the same country that put his grandfather through the horrific "Jim Crow" laws has now elected a black presidential nominee. What's really cool is my father has lived long enough to see it.

My dads a Conservative Republican but he's walking with a little pep in his step today. He called and told me 13 percent of the population could'nt pull this off. He's right. I am happy for him!
So now I'm a "person of non-color"? I find that racist!!!!
seriously....the guy is HALF BLACK and HALF WHITE. How does 1/2 white + 1/2 black = black? I don't get it. Someone needs to come up with a "PC" name for this, like Caucafrican American or something....
Caucafrican.

I second that. I truly am laughing out loud. Caucafrican!

Take care,
Dick Fain

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:42 pm

I third it. Good line, Jacko...

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:52 pm

F308GTB wrote:Read this - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=91181127 (also audio if you don't want to read it). My jaw dropped at several points when I heard it this morning, in particular
"The world's not ready for a black president," he said. He isn't sure how to explain what has happened so far, but he is sure of how it will end: "They will kill him, assassinate him. I thought they were going to ... during the primaries."
Lots of paranoia in the black community, and lots of claims of racism. No doubt that exists still, but IMO not on the instutional level some claim. But hey, I'm just a white boy so what do I know.

I don't know about paranoia but we just had the 40th anniversary of RFK's assassination.

Seemed for a time that assassinations were too common.

You hope it's something we've outgrown. Other nations still have problems, especially in some of the former Soviet Bloc countries. Mexico has seen 4 high-level police executive officers killed in the past year.

Of course in 24, a fictional black POTUS goes through several assassination attempts and is finally killed after leaving office.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:42 am

Bush admin. trying to force Iraqis to accept pact for permanent bases in Iraq?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... vice=Print

Sounds like a permanent presence has little to do with progress towards stability, democracy, etc.

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:53 am

wco81 wrote:Bush admin. trying to force Iraqis to accept pact for permanent bases in Iraq?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... vice=Print

Sounds like a permanent presence has little to do with progress towards stability, democracy, etc.

He's trying to keep his legacy. He still believes that in the history books he is going to heralded as the leader with the vision to install democracy in the middle east. I'm not saying that's impossible but I love that he doesn't even have a second thought. At this point he's (and his admin) invested so much into the war it would be impossible for him to recant.

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:27 am

I was just thinking about who Obama should pick for VP and I think Jim Webb would be perfect. While he wouldn't inspire all Democrats I think he would counter McCain's image perfectly. So when Obama says something about the GI bill he can't just go "you are lecturing me on the military?" because Webb has credibility and would support Obama. I also like Webb because he's passionate and articulate. Obviously, he may be too inexperienced given Obama's "inexperience" to put him on the ticket. But in many ways he would appeal to some of Hilary's base and counter McCain's military credibility. I think he would be perfect.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:54 am

wco81 wrote:Bush admin. trying to force Iraqis to accept pact for permanent bases in Iraq?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... vice=Print

Sounds like a permanent presence has little to do with progress towards stability, democracy, etc.

What does this have to do with the 2008 election?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:18 am

Rob speculated in the old thread that with progress in Iraq, no matter who gets elected, they will have to commit to leaving troops indefinitely.

Others believed it would be a situation like Germany or S. Korea, where over 50 years later, we have forces.

This story, if true, suggests that's the Bush admin. plan, to force the Iraqis into a pact and tie the hands of successors to a certain extent (we're spending a fortune on a fortified compound in Baghdad).

And such long-term commitment may have little to do with whatever is happening on the ground.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:44 am

I like Webb a lot but there's the lingering effect of his 1979 article "Women Can't Fight" regarding the role of women in combat (which he's since apologized for, apparently) that might further raise the ire of disillusioned HIllary supporters.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:00 am

wco81 wrote:
I don't know about paranoia but we just had the 40th anniversary of RFK's assassination.

Seemed for a time that assassinations were too common.

You hope it's something we've outgrown. Other nations still have problems, especially in some of the former Soviet Bloc countries. Mexico has seen 4 high-level police executive officers killed in the past year.

Of course in 24, a fictional black POTUS goes through several assassination attempts and is finally killed after leaving office.

I think its due to better secret service and better technology for them to use. Also, candidates won't be as out "in the open" anymore like they were in the 60's and 70's. Unfortunately we are still a long way away from a world where a candidate can walk around without secret service up his wazoo.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:33 pm

wco81 wrote:Rob speculated in the old thread that with progress in Iraq, no matter who gets elected, they will have to commit to leaving troops indefinitely.

Others believed it would be a situation like Germany or S. Korea, where over 50 years later, we have forces.

This story, if true, suggests that's the Bush admin. plan, to force the Iraqis into a pact and tie the hands of successors to a certain extent (we're spending a fortune on a fortified compound in Baghdad).

And such long-term commitment may have little to do with whatever is happening on the ground.

Do you really think that any pact signed while Bush is president could not be thrown out of changed once the new pres. takes over? Oh that's right, even in death Bush has control over everything.

And here I thought you were just using this to take another shot at Bush. How silly of me

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:57 pm

matthewk wrote:Do you really think that any pact signed while Bush is president could not be thrown out of changed once the new pres. takes over? Oh that's right, even in death Bush has control over everything.

And here I thought you were just using this to take another shot at Bush. How silly of me

It's not a question of a pact. It's a question of massive infrastructure investments and historical context.

One, if the U.S. spends billions to build a permanent military establishment in Iraq, no president after Bush is going to immediately dismantle that, regardless of party. Then Uncle Sam's investment won't be justified, as there's nothing that government enjoys more -- regardless of the party in charge -- than more government.

Two, look at every other major U.S. military post created in the aftermath of war and occupation -- South Korea, Germany, even Guantanamo. We're still there and there in significant numbers.

That's not going to change in Iraq, either. I'm not convinced if Bush is doing this because he thinks its right or because it's part of his futile legacy-building activities, but presidents for at least the next generation will be responsible for maintaining this military presence in Iraq and its accompanying huge expense.

The U.S. owns and rules Iraq, regardless of the PR spewed from the White House about the Iraqi government and forces assuming more control. It's just as much of a U.S. territory right now as Puerto Rico, American Samoa or Guam. In fact, Uncle Sam is spending a hell of a lot more money on infrastructure and daily governance in Iraq than in any U.S. territory, I would guess.

So any idea about a rapid departure or the sudden reversal of the establishment of a permanent military presence in the region by any president is sheer folly.

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:26 pm

Best possible week for the Democrats, with the 1-2 punch of the Clinton-Obama rapproachment and the horrible unemployment data. McCain's chances hinge almost entirely on the economy holding ground, if not improving. Much more important than Iraq.

I'm sure that the long-term Iraq committment was part of the plan from Day 1. The ability to have a permanent force projection in the region was discussed early on, according to many of the recent books which have broken down the path to the war.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:09 pm

pk500 wrote:It's not a question of a pact. It's a question of massive infrastructure investments and historical context.

One, if the U.S. spends billions to build a permanent military establishment in Iraq, no president after Bush is going to immediately dismantle that, regardless of party. Then Uncle Sam's investment won't be justified, as there's nothing that government enjoys more -- regardless of the party in charge -- than more government.

Two, look at every other major U.S. military post created in the aftermath of war and occupation -- South Korea, Germany, even Guantanamo. We're still there and there in significant numbers.

That's not going to change in Iraq, either. I'm not convinced if Bush is doing this because he thinks its right or because it's part of his futile legacy-building activities, but presidents for at least the next generation will be responsible for maintaining this military presence in Iraq and its accompanying huge expense.

The U.S. owns and rules Iraq, regardless of the PR spewed from the White House about the Iraqi government and forces assuming more control. It's just as much of a U.S. territory right now as Puerto Rico, American Samoa or Guam. In fact, Uncle Sam is spending a hell of a lot more money on infrastructure and daily governance in Iraq than in any U.S. territory, I would guess.

So any idea about a rapid departure or the sudden reversal of the establishment of a permanent military presence in the region by any president is sheer folly.

Take care,
PK

The US has been building permanent bases in Iraq for several years now.
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases_text.htm
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/120996

Bush basically set it up so we can't ever permanently, completely leave.
It's looking more and more like this was always about gaining control of a spot in the middle east. All this stuff about WMD's, Sadaam & AlQueda, Democracy for the Iraqi's, etc. was just a smokescreen for a permanent presence in the Middle East. Let's face it...we are there for the long haul.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:07 pm

Anyone interested in Libertarian Bob Barr should check out The Glen Beck Show on HNN(Headline News Network) tonight (Friday)at 7 and 9 pm est. He is giving Barr a full hour.

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:38 pm

Prelude: I have been kept away from my Xbox for the last week, so I have a lot of anger to express. I read a few posts where the possible electoral map was being discussed and couldn't help but wonder... Try not to get offended.

For a nation that thrives itself on democracy, perhaps not fully understanding the concept, but enough to feel the need and the ability to arbitrate the level of such in other countries, US is strangely hypocritical. The main premise of democracy is simply - one person - one vote. An idea simple and understandable, but somehow completely bypassed in the "democratic" election of the "democratic" president of the most "democratic" country in the world. Pardon the sarcasm, but it seems laughable to me that millions of people's votes simply will NOT count. I understand the history of the Electoral College, and I can even appreciate its significance in the United States of XIIX-XIX century (which, by the way was never designed to be a democratic country to begin with, but that's a whole other subject), but to think that it has place in the modern world of politics is simply absurd. Here is the sad part -- the vast majority of the population agrees. So why is it still here? The country that prides itself (duly) on bringing innovation to the political make-up of the world, is displaying conservatism bordering on idiocy when it comes its Constitution, which in many cases, is ridiculously outdated. Electoral College is one of the most notable examples. I can understand politicians not being too eager to change the system. Current state of things gives them ability to better judge their campaign spending, by not going after "locked" states. But what about the voting public?!

Shame on you people. Shame on you for being so enthralled with the election process now, but remaining completely oblivious to politics the other 3.5 years of the cycle. Perhaps, it's the side effect of relative stability that this country enjoyed for the last 20-30 years, but I think it's time to realize that stability is no more. How can you be okay with the fact that your vote means close to nothing? If you live in Illinois, California, New York, etc... and vote Republican - your vote means NOTHING. And vice versa. The really apprehensive part is the lack of trying. There are mechanisms in place to get this changed without the initiative coming from Congress (I think it's safe to assume by now, that they don't want it changed), but no one seems interested. Can you imagine this kind of complacency during the movements for equal rights?

For those of you who don't think it's a big deal... If Electoral College was dissolved 10 years ago, Bush would not be president, and you would be looking at a much different America right now.

P.S. Zeppo warned me against posting in the political thread. He called it evil

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:06 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote: P.S. Zeppo warned me against posting in the political thread. He called it evil

Wise man he...

Once the darkside takes hold you are done.

Oh and by the way I agree with ya...Every single vote should count as much as the next one.

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:17 pm

Slumberland wrote:I like Webb a lot but there's the lingering effect of his 1979 article "Women Can't Fight" regarding the role of women in combat (which he's since apologized for, apparently) that might further raise the ire of disillusioned HIllary supporters.

Obviously, since Webb is a converted Republican he is going to have some conservative views and possibly some that clash with the democrats but that may be able to swing some voters and having another guy who can inspire people on the ticket, but in a different way, would be very beneficial. Obama actually talked about Webb today I believe and he recognized he is big voice in the party right now. I hope he's considering him. My choices for vp: 1) Webb 2) Edwards 3) Clinton 4) Richardson.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:24 pm

Say what you will about the Electoral College, but at least we haven't had a president poisoned in some time

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:34 pm

RobVarak wrote:Say what you will about the Electoral College, but at least we haven't had a president poisoned in some time

Yeah, except in case of this president, it's rather unfortunate... And, you know, in my country vice-president doesn't perform executions, at least not first hand...

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:17 am