The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: JorgeFabregas on July 28, 2004, 02:35:05 am
-
....should be president. :idea:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=2043&e=5&u=/ap/20040728/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_text
-
And he NEVER WILL. That's the shitty thing about our political system: for some reason, the people who become presidential nominees are never the sort of people I want as my president. But that is a hell of a speech.
-
That's the shitty thing about our political system: for some reason, the people who become presidential nominees are never the sort of people I want as my president.
http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1008
-
That is indeed quite the speech... best of luck to this one, though as everyone's already pointed out, he's not got a chance.
-
It's a little early to start handicapping this race, dontcha think? When you put that burden of expectation on someone before he's really got much political experience, you're just setting him up for failure.
On the other hand, nice speech.
-
Good point. One term in the House, though, and he will be exactly as experienced as John Edwards. Hopefully, unlike Mr Edwards, he would stand a chance of re-election should he not have a higher political aspiration.
This country may not be ready for either a Black president nor one with an obviously 'ethnic' name. Before some of you get your fizzle up in a shizzle I'm not disparaging the guy (although you should closely inspect ANY Chicago politician) just pointing out the foibles of the electorate. It won't sell in fly-over country.
-
Here's the thing, he DOES sell well in fly-over country. As Dick Durbin mentioned when he introduced him, he's done very well in southern Illinois.
-
Video of Obama's speech here (http://mfile.akamai.com/12294/mov/dncc.download.akamai.com/12294/07272004/barack_obama_300.mov).
-
You have to remember though, that regardless of how awesome and eloquent and popular Obama may be, the higher his profile becomes, the more he'll become a target for crazies. Colin Powell received a lot of death threats when he just considered running for president, and he's a white republican. Just something to think about.
-
...Colin Powell received a lot of death threats when he just considered running for president, and he's a white republican. Just something to think about.
Colin Powell isn't white. But then, how can you be an ethnic minority and be a republican? This always confused me. He is white compaired to Obama. Am I typing jibberish? What does that even mean? Anyway, you can't even be kind-of-good looking and hold any real role in politics. Even Ah-nold had to wait 'til his skin got all cooked-turkey-like before running.
Also, welcome to the plagiarist board Gunn, love your strip.
-
I didn't have to check off a racial box to register Republican...the fastest growing part of the Republican Party is probably black and latino. But I think it's possible that there are more voters with no party identification than ever before, and the swing could develop into a party of its own at some point.
-
This is why I love living in an all independent state (which sadly always votes republican).
-
You know, AlohaDawg, a very large proportion of people who call themselves independent voters consistently vote for candidates from one or the other party, according to polls. So there may not be a lot of there, there.
I think this country naturally ends up with a two-party system due to the nature of winner-takes-all voting. I'm not sure a large third party is viable except as a home for the transition while one of the two major parties we already have dies out.
-
*double take* you registered as a Republican in Hawaii? You must feel rather lonely. As I understand it Hawaii is overwhelmingly Democratic, right?
-
a very large proportion of independent voters using the nickname "Arkabee" on phorums consistently vote for the least icky and evil choices possible.
I think we naturally end up with a two party system because that is the status quo, and all the people who spent their ENTIRE lives learning the rules so they can take advantage of them get rilly, rilly pissed once they are able to take advantage of the rules if you try and change the rules.
witness:
the city i live in was "redistricted" after last election.
what that means, is that PORTIONS of my city will now vote on DIFFERENT state representatives to represent the city and area at the state.
here is a crude picture. image that blob as my city's city limits.
http://www.themisc.com/~kevbob/district.jpg
notice the two colors?
it use to be one color, we were all in the same district.
however, 2 precincts, the red ones, were "re-districted".
why? not sure.
however, LAST ELECTION, the current INCUMBENT lost the two red precincts....
NOW, he doesn't have to worry about those precincts, because those people can't vote in his election.
-
I'm so glad we don't have a two party system here in Canada. It's so nice to vote for a party that never, ever wins. "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"
-
"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"
Among my favourite Simpsons moments, and definitely another thing I dig about Canada. I did a lot of volunteer work for the NDP and even though my riding went overwhelmingly to Canada's
most appalling and humiliating MP (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062902.html), I could still feel vaguely part of something productive.
-
*double take* you registered as a Republican in Hawaii? You must feel rather lonely. As I understand it Hawaii is overwhelmingly Democratic, right?
Actually, you don't register a party here in Hawii, all local and primary elections are non-partisan.
The state is overwhelmingly Democratic, but did manage to elect a Republcian Governor for the first time since Statehood in 2002. The overwhelming democraticness is partially due to the fact that Military personnel don't vote here because they don't claim residence here, because of the confiscatory tax structure. There are a lot of other social reasons for the Democratic strength; the high proportion of workers employed by either the City/County or the State (>25 %) and the strength of the labor unions is probably a big part of it.
I think that the "There, there" nationally may be growing. One reason independent voters don't vote independent is because either they can't (there are places that don't allow independent candidates on ballots) or because of a lack of a choice. These are independent voters. There are independents out there who are non-voters for these reasons.
I remember the election in '80 where John Anderson ran as a minimally viable independent candidate. I think these kinds of candidates have grown in popularity to the point of significantly affecting election outcomes (Perot in '92). Given the growing dissatisfaction with mainstream candidates, the use of the internet which came into its own this this year in terms of MoveOn.org, and the inability of either of the 2 major parties to budge undecided voters thus far, I still think there is a growing opportunity for something to emerge in the middle; possibly something more 'populist', likely appealing to young and possibly also 2nd-3rd generation (established) immigrant populations. I also believe that African Americans in the US generally don't have a political option that they can really buy into and this will probably begin to play itself out in elections for House/Senate seats soon as higher proportions of AA populations vote in elections; this could also begin to fuel either very significant change in one of the major parties in terms of platform or the emergence of a viable third party.
The two major parties have begun to drift toward one another in a lot of the issues they used to fight over. They will have an interesting time differentiating their platforms. This is where a third party could begin to develon an identity and begin to catch the undecideds.
-
"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"
Among my favourite Simpsons moments, and definitely another thing I dig about Canada. I did a lot of volunteer work for the NDP and even though my riding went overwhelmingly to Canada's
most appalling and humiliating MP (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062902.html), I could still feel vaguely part of something productive.
Good! That's so important - I applaud people who make noise and do everything legally and ethically possible to get a message out in the face of overwhelming odds. Even the barest grassroots campaign out there needs to have someone planting the seeds.
-
I would madly support a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Why isn't there one of those?
-
I would madly support a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Why isn't there one of those?
Do you mean socially liberal like legalizing drugs, relaxing prohibitions on behavior, allowing same sex marriage, etc. or do you mean socially liberal like expanding entitlement programs?
-
I would madly support a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Why isn't there one of those?
That's sort of the Libertarian platform. Or one of them. The great thing about being a Libertarian is every Libertarian invents the Libertarian platform on their own, but I think fiscally conservative and socially liberal sums a fair amount of the Libertarians up.
-
Wouldn't have described me when I was one. I was all about you NOT spending my money on other people. It was about you letting me KEEP my money and letting me do more of what I want. Which did not include subsidizing crackwhores and their imisbegotten spawn.
I'm not one now.
-
I used to be a libertarian until I realized I couldn't stand other libertarians and didn't want to waste my vote any more. I think the libertarian reply to 9/11 (it's our fault! Let's become more isolationist and they'll leave us alone!) finally turned me off the party forever. At least Republicans and Democrats are willing to support a muscular foreign policy. We get about as many wars under Democrats as we do under Republicans, and we would have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq no matter who was President. I realized I couldn't deal with this complete denial of America's role in the world, that mainstream libertarians were saying we need to withdraw in on ourselves and try not to be noticed.
-
I would madly support a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Why isn't there one of those?
Do you mean socially liberal like legalizing drugs, relaxing prohibitions on behavior, allowing same sex marriage, etc. or do you mean socially liberal like expanding entitlement programs?
The former. Expanding entitlement programs wouldn't be fiscally conservative.
-
Ventura 2008! wooooo! He'll piledrive, like . . . the economy, 'n stuff!
-
Ralph Nader rocks too, cause he looks just like Peter Falk
-
Ventura 2008! wooooo! He'll piledrive, like . . . the economy, 'n stuff!
Mick Foley just said the other day he'd consider a run for congress. I believe it was on Air America.
-
Minnesotans became really disillusioned with Jesse after living through his governorship. I don't know if he really has a lot of political future after that. Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about.
-
I am not a big Green booster (I am becoming disillusioned after hearing constantly that I am a Democrat because I've been brainwashed by Big Politics, not because, you know, I actually share their policies) but I will say that Ralph Nader can pull off the tough-guy act ridiculously well. When we put together the spring issue of the college humor magazine, we found and used the best "go ahead, make my day" Nader shot ever. It looked like he was reacting to the chief telling him to TURN IN HIS BADGE, COWBOY, YOU'RE OFF THE CASE.
(Which I guess the Green Party kind of did, but...)
-
I used to be a libertarian until I realized I couldn't stand other libertarians and didn't want to waste my vote any more. I think the libertarian reply to 9/11 (it's our fault! Let's become more isolationist and they'll leave us alone!) finally turned me off the party forever. At least Republicans and Democrats are willing to support a muscular foreign policy. We get about as many wars under Democrats as we do under Republicans, and we would have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq no matter who was President. I realized I couldn't deal with this complete denial of America's role in the world, that mainstream libertarians were saying we need to withdraw in on ourselves and try not to be noticed.
As if our foreign policy had no fault. I think the Libertarian position is a reaction against the sentiment that America should be able to stomp all over the world to satiate its desires without any consideration for other nations or any thought for consequences. A muscular foreign policy needs to be balanced by lots of debate and at least some restraint. I assume that you actually argue that America does have an important and unique role in the world, and while I agree with that, our foreign policy has often been based on immoral or unwise considerations. Of course many of those considerations seemed wise, and even moral, at the time, but part of moving forward is acknowledging and correcting, when possible, the mistakes of the past, well-intentioned or not.
While most people agreed that invading Afghanistan was the correct thing to do (The Nation's editorial board, I think, didn't), it's not clear at all that Iraq would have been invaded regardless of who is President. I know Kerry supported the potential for an invasion of Iraq, but it's pretty clear that he at least disagreed with the timing. Who knows what would have happend had we waited. I certianly don't. And Dean clearly wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and Gore might not have either. Republican Pat Buchanan wouldn't have, though I do realize he's not much of a mainstream republican.
I agree that Democrats are just as likely to start wars (just and unjust, if you care to make that distinction) as are Republicans. For example: Vietnam. I seriously doubt Iraq will ever equal that mess of a police action. Also, FDR and Truman destroyed hundreds of thousands of civilians in WWII. So I'm not arguing specifically for or against either party. Besides, parties change, often drastically, over time.
And I also agree that isolationism is dangerous and even wrong, especially in light of the mess we and other western nations have left some of the world in, but certainly unrestrained imperialism is more dangerous. I agree that America is a great nation with unique responsibilities, and has done much good, mostly because of its wealth, and I disagree with isolationism. But I think our past foreign policy decisions, some dating back to WWI, have some blame in today's mess.
To put all of the cards on the table, I'm a registered Democrat, and I agree, to a certain point, with the Libertarian Party's social policies on drugs, sexual rights and capital punishment (at least I think the party is opposed to the death penalty), but disagree with its foreign and economic policies.
-
I love Ralph Nader, and while I don't think I would vote for him as President, I respect his campaigning. I think he received a lot of undeserved criticism for the 2000 elction. If Gore had been a better candidate, he would slayed Bush. I mean he was riding on the coattails of a flawed, but very popular President, and 8 years of prosperity. Nader may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but he was only a straw. Lots of things went wrong in 2000. Anyway, I just like Nader. He kicks ass. Thanks for seatbelts, Ralph!
-
While I voted for Nader in 2000, I could never vote for him again after he made the "Israeli puppeteers" comment. No matter what way you slice it that's antisemitic.
miles, your comment (I'm not talking about the Nader one but rather the one before it) is worthwhile and I agree with large portions of it. I've been meaning to reply to you in detail for several hours and just now realized that would never happen DUE TO LAZINESS so I thought I would at least say this.
-
i voted for Nader in 2000 in an attempt[1] to "make my vote count" by "showing those people" that a two party system made up of members that were interchangable with the other party's members just wasn't going to cut the mustard anymore.
or something.
given that i don't think my one, singular vote in this particular state allowed "Junior" to fuck up my country sinc the election, i have not committed suicide.
But i feel, now, that the status quo has "won",
because even though i know the person i'm voting for in no way shape or form represents me,
i'll vote for them based purely and callously upon the principle of the lessor of multiple evils.
Damn You Status Quo,
Damn You To Hell.
-
[1] "pathetic"
-
Damn You Status Quo,
Damn You To Hell.
http://tiA-CAPrl.com/3mz85
-
Damn You Status Quo,
Damn You To Hell.
http://tiA-CAPrl.com/3mz85
This is simply wonderful.
-
Damn You Status Quo,
Damn You To Hell.
http://tiA-CAPrl.com/3mz85
This is simply wonderful.
I just wish that the description was on the back or something.
-
Also, FDR and Truman destroyed hundreds of thousands of civilians in WWII
One needs only to examine the Japanese actions in China, the Philippines, Truk, the Marshalls, and especially their herding of the residents of Saipan and other pacific islands over suicide cliffs (there is FILM of this...mothers throwing babies over the cliff before either jumping themselves or being bayonetted) as they were losing the island to the US Marines to understand that were the US to have invaded Japan there would have been no surrender. There would have been house to house fighting over the entire Japanese home island. Women would have killed their children and fought to the death or suicided.
The bloodbath that would have been the invasion of Japan would have killed more Japanese men, women and children and destroyed more of Japan than the atomic bombs. Also, the Japanese didn't even surrender after the first atomic bomb - that is a good measure of their unwillingness to surrender even with the knowledge of our capability.
The President of the time (Truman) was forced to decide whether to inflict mass casualties on BOTH sides or spare American troops and their families injury and death while accomplishing the same goal. That required letting a genie out of the bottle, and humanity is lessened by it. But it was a foregone conclusion that atomic weaponry would be developed and used eventually. Had we not already won the war on Europe, London would likely have been the first target of the atomic bomb Germany was working on at the same time.
Firebombing Dresden is a different story - that was somewhat inhuman and seemed to be a countervalue attack on soft targets which I don't feel is the most honorable way to prosecute a war.
-
Also, FDR and Truman destroyed hundreds of thousands of civilians in WWII
snip
The bloodbath that would have been the invasion of Japan would have killed more Japanese men, women and children and destroyed more of Japan than the atomic bombs. Also, the Japanese didn't even surrender after the first atomic bomb - that is a good measure of their unwillingness to surrender even with the knowledge of our capability.
snip snip
Firebombing Dresden is a different story - that was somewhat inhuman and seemed to be a countervalue attack on soft targets which I don't feel is the most honorable way to prosecute a war.
All good points but still the decision was made to slaughter humans wholesale. Dresden is probably the best example, but the atomic bombs and the bombing of Tokyo should make any person at least a bit uneasy. I didn't mean to argue against the decision to bomb, but mainly threw it in to support the idea that Democrats can also kick foreigner ass, and that electing a Democrat to the presidency won't usher in a milleneum of peace.
Although I would say some did and still do disagree how the war in Japan would have turned out had we not dropped the bombs. Surely we would have lost more soldiers, but how many more is still disputed, but your point about the Japanese civillians is pivotal. If it is true, then the bombs may seem a better choice than to invade.
-
Although I would say some did and still do disagree how the war in Japan would have turned out had we not dropped the bombs. Surely we would have lost more soldiers, but how many more is still disputed, but your point about the Japanese civillians is pivotal. If it is true, then the bombs may seem a better choice than to invade.
A better choice (http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm) indeed.
electing a Democrat to the presidency won't usher in a milleneum of peace.
Maybe not, but getting Bush and the neocons (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040720.htm) out of the White House certainly wouldn't hurt.
-
All good points but still the decision was made to slaughter humans wholesale.
I agree with that a very difficult decision was made but I think that it's important to remember the context and see what the options may have been. Decisions had already been made in Europe to slaughter 6 million in the holocaust; in Asia the Japanese had been busy enslaving Chinese, Burmese, Filipino and anyone else unlucky enough to capture their attention since 1931. The Chinese claim 30 million slaughtered between 1931 and 1945 and in Nanjing alone, in one winter, (12/37 - 2/38) there were 200,000 civilian and POW deaths and 20,000 rapes.
Does that mean it's justified to vaporize two population centers? No. But I assume that the decision makers had a very good handle on the nature of the enemy and that enemy was not one a war-wearied military could possibly have engaged in an invasion.
-
Minnesotans became really disillusioned with Jesse after living through his governorship. I don't know if he really has a lot of political future after that. Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about.
In case anyone is still reading this thread, you do know what you're talking about. I am a Minnesotan, and you are right.
Also, in case anyone is still reading, I also know Barack Obama. He was my law professor. And he is the real deal.
-
Also, in case anyone is still reading, I also know Barack Obama. He was my law professor. And he is the real deal.
Kick ASS! You...were a law student??
-
Also, in case anyone is still reading, I also know Barack Obama. He was my law professor. And he is the real deal.
Kick ASS! You...were a law student??
I was a law student. Before I became a lawyer.
-
Thank you for your confirmation that Obama is "the real deal." I have heard that from friends of otherwise-cynical volunteers for him, etc. I am very excited that he's going to be one of our senators.
-
Thank you for your confirmation that Obama is "the real deal." I have heard that from friends of otherwise-cynical volunteers for him, etc. I am very excited that he's going to be one of our senators.
Obama in '08!
-
No, miles! Too soon!
-
Thank you for your confirmation that Obama is "the real deal." I have heard that from friends of otherwise-cynical volunteers for him, etc. I am very excited that he's going to be one of our senators.
Obama in '08!
Someone said this to me this very same day. I was quite happy to see his overwhelming victory.
-
My girlfriend said it as well. Of course, she's sweet on him. I told her he needs to at least complete one term in the senate first. Though we might not be able to wait that long.
-
We were talking about this at work today. I hate to say it but I think the first black and/or female president will have to be a republican. Because a signicant portion of dems would cross party lines just to vote for the first black/female president (liberal guilt) while republicans wouldn't do the same for a democrat candidate.
-
did anyone else see Alan Keyes' concession "speech"?
-
Probably no one because no one in their right mind could possibly have dreamed that Barack Obama could lose. So what did he say?
-
No, miles! Too soon!
Aww, perfect. That made me smile.
But why not? We elected Bush with almost no political experience. I'm told that the governor of Texas is almost meaningless.
Oh that's right, because he failed miserably.
Good point, maybe we shall wait till '12 0r '16.
-
Probably no one because no one in their right mind could possibly have dreamed that Barack Obama could lose. So what did he say?
i don't know. he said many words, but i do not understand what he was saying. i was curious whether anyone else had seen it that they might have explained it to me.
-
Alan Keyes was basically setting himself up as a political martyr for the truth, saying that the leadership of his party that didn't support him just couldn't handle the bare facts. He also said he is staying in Illinois to do...something.
I know he was running against a wackjob candidate, but 4/10 Republicans did vote for Obama. It's not impossible that he would draw moderate Republicans in a presidential election.
-
Most people of either party who can think about the situation for a moment should understand (as no doubt Alan Keyes does) that the Republican Party was fully understanding that they were sacrificing that seat since Ryan's divorce papers got released and it was revealed that he was trying to get 7 of 9 to have sex with 3 or 4. At once. In public.
The Party was not about to spend money on a race doomed to failure with all that was at stake; their strategy appears to have been pretty good down the stretch looking at the legislative gains they made. Keyes better have had that speech vetted by the party before launching a load of hate-filled balloons because without the support of the Party, he'll never have a chance to campaign for any major office again.
-
Ryan was doing lousy even before the divorce papers were unsealed. Obama's campaign was a juggernaut.