The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: jaydub on February 05, 2008, 03:17:07 am
-
I'm amused to find California relevant in a national election. I'm very curious to see what the pundits make of the numbers coming out of tomorrow's contests. I have a feeling, based on what I'm hearing around me, that the Bay Area has fallen hard for Barack Obama. If that bears out, and the national Democrat types cut Hillary loose (telling her to settle for VP perhaps), I think we may well be looking at another 4 years of Republican executive leadership.
I don't think its a black president that the nation isn't ready for - I just don't think that much of America will find the idea of handing the mantle of state to the junior senator of Illinois wise. On the other hand, I think his presence in the Senate would be missed. I hope his presidential bid doesn't sink his chances at re-election.
-
Barack Obama has already admitted defeat in California. He said this on tonight's CBS news interview with Katie Couric.
-
I honestly think that the majority of Amurrikans think, "Ain't no Negro or woman gonna run this heah country." I've never been to a caucus before, so it will be interesting. I think that Hillary is a more seasoned candidate than Obama, but I cannot envision a woman being elected in the 21st century, because despite all the progress we've made, we're still mired in patriarchal society. I think that the majority of Americans want an old, rich, white dude as president. Maybe in the 22nd century a black and/or female candidate will have a chance?
We'll see how things turn out in November, I guess.
-
This is probably his version of the case of sniffles Clinton came down with before the NH primary. Rallying support for the underdog.
Barack Obama has already admitted defeat in California. He said this on tonight's CBS news interview with Katie Couric.
I honestly think that the majority of Amurrikans think, "Ain't no Negro or woman gonna run this heah country."
Somebody nice, those crusty anarchists in Alaska must have rubbed a cynical spot raw on you. Of course, I live in Pollyannaland, CA where they hand out rose-colored glasses with your multicultural neighborhood welcome packet.
-
That seems like a nicer part of CA where I live; I'm just trying not to trip over hoboes on the way to work.
-
Ultimately, I think Barack falls not because of his (multi) ethnicity but rather because a vote for Hilary is a vote for Bill as First Dude.
I know that there are a lot of right-wing types who do not appreciate the Bubbalicious but anywhere there are core Democrats, there are people who miss the hell outta that lovable scamp. Maybe Senator Obama gives Gramps McCain less of a shot than Hilary does across the spectrum of the American opinion scheme?
But, man, an indirect way to vote for Bill again? I'm there, kids.
EDIT: Remember though, linnea... the right-wing DESPISES McCain for not sucking White Jesus's cock every single moment of his public service, no matter how conservative his votes usually are and all of his war-type bonafides and so on.
That is definitely a balance point for all of the similar ovary-hating and Clinton-hating on the right.
-
Yeah, I don't think that is right at all LFM.
My parents are strong democrats who liked and prospered under Clinton but don't really want to go there again. They are both voting Obama. I have heard a lot of baby boomers talking about how their generation fucked up their presidents, too. Especially on liberal (but not too liberal) news sites. These people generally just want to move on, it seems. Then again, my dads location and income plus his political beliefs make the NYT call every election cycle because he is not normal for the area and the other people are opinion columnists on liberal, internet only news sites, so maybe I don't know a thing.
Well, here is a useless thing I learned in history class: If McCain doesn't win, we will never have a president born during the 1930s. It would be really unlikely at least.
Plus, Bill is being a real jerk recently. I always basically liked him (to young to really care until it was just about oral sex, then I was hell of interested), but I am more leaning to the "fuck that guy" side by the day. I mean, yeah, I would vote for (the) Clinton(s) over any republican, but I don't think that many people really have a strong urge to go back to those times. Stuff was good, stuff was bad. Better than today for sure, but why not go forward? Isn't that what liberals are supposed to do?
Sign me up for Kucinich if he is on the ballot, if not I'll go Obama. I vote for who I want my president to be during the primaries, i'll make concessions during the presidential race.
-
the right-wing DESPISES McCain for not sucking White Jesus's cock every single moment of his public service, no matter how conservative his votes usually are and all of his war-type bonafides and so on.
This is actually one of my strongest arguments for voting for McCain. Loosening the Religious White's stranglehold on the Republican party can only lead to better politics. Its been an absolute trainwreck for moderate republicans in California for going on 14 years. Tom Campbell should be in national office now - instead he's teaching business and running Haas (the B-school) at Berkeley.
-
McCain is okay, but I don't like his politics.
-
No no no, that's the conundrum about McCain.
He would be the most conservative of all because he would feel that he HAS to be if he wants a second term.
Kind of a reverse "Only Nixon can go to China" thing. He'd have to try to pass legislation making remembering that there's a such concept as abortion illegal, if he wants them to back him and keep backing him. No trust there, no matter what he does.
Mijesuske Huckjesusajesusbee would have the right-wing resume to occasionally be moderate about this or that and get away with it.
Romney can't win because there's a lot of places where they'd just rather run a third-party guy or not vote as opposed to voting for a Mormon, whether they wanna admit it on anything other than a secret ballot or not.
Besides. 51% of all Americans everywhere are ladies. I think it really takes the edge off of sexism keeping a woman from being a president and every dude has a mom or had one... there's a lot of American caucasians who have tried and succeeded in zip-locking themselves away from blacks in every fashion that they can.
Ladies are everywhere.
I hate to put it in this manner but... I think we're gonna be at a point as a nation where we're "ready" for a woman president a generation before we're "ready" for a black president. I don't know if that's Hilary or not but... there we are.
Even the most conservative men either fuck ladies or desperately pretend that they are fuck*ng ladies.
It's a hard weird crude way or approaching it but I think it's probably true.
-
There will be blood.
Either way tomorrow should be interesting, even if inconclusive.
-
I hate to put it in this manner but... I think we're gonna be at a point as a nation where we're "ready" for a woman president a generation before we're "ready" for a black president. I don't know if that's Hilary or not but... there we are.
I have the exact opposite intuition. I think most people would vote for a man with black skin before a woman with... ovaries and feelings. So many people straight-up hate Senator Clinton.
Obama though, man. I dig on him.
And McCain... well... he gave this speech at some point about Torture that made me almost tear up a little bit. I feel like democrats/liberals have lost some kind of... moral clarity. You know? He is, or was, willing to say "you think torture is OK? that's unamerican. if we torture, we are no better than the terrorists. the thing that got me through those years in the Hanoi Hilton was the knowledge that I was better than my captors."
I don't think people pick-and-choosing Bible passages should have a monopoly on moral clarity and willingness to call people on their bullshit.
...of course, lately, McCain seems to be hell of pandering.
I think it was Keith who said he had a bumper sticker that says "The last time we mixed politics and religion... we had a successful civil rights movement."
-
From what I've looked at the history of the civil rights movement... not my strongest suit, admittedly... there's this weird thing going on where all the contributions of non-religious components in the civil rights movement have kind of been conveniently forgotten.
There was as much burning religious furvor against African-American rights as there was for it, remember... I think the convenient narrative betrays the truth of history on that one.
The left lacks moral authority not because they lost the weight of moral authority but, rather, because they/we were tricked into losing focus and spreading it willy-nilly into concern for everyone and everything instead of fixing what needs to be fixed most urgently first and then moving on to the next set of things that need fixing.
I think the expansion of media into a collection of niches instead of a few national programming choices created this slow growing schism on accident and... as the media consolidated, certain business forces have done their best to push that schism as hard as they could on purpose.
Ain't no progress at all if all the progressives devolve into one-issue voters on whatever one-issue cranks their gank the most... and oh, by the by, on that note, Ralph Nader sucks the devil's cock in hell.
Also? Ralph Nader sucks the devil's cock in hell. I cannot stress this enough. There's no better or more singular example of the above than Ralph Nader... of a dude with good intentions doing more harm just by the bad guys letting him hang himself with his own vanity.
There are not many people I have never met who I would punch in the face if I met them.
Ralph Nader and Cliff Floyd are on that short list.
-
I've obviously got a bit of distance from the nuance of what's going on over there, but I reckon if you end up with Obama vs. McCain you'd be in a good place. Probably be a decently tight race too.
Hillary has way too much baggage and doesn't come across as very personable (which shouldn't matter, but there you go) Obama has his neo-kennedy schtick down. If you want to vote for someone who knows what's going on from the inside and can get stuff done you'd vote for Hillary but I'm putting money on people voting for Obama because maybe they want a break from all this divisive politics (isn't that how Bush got in?).
McCain seems like a good guy, I can only hope he's made the switcheroos he has recently to get elected and his heart won't be in it when he's in the big house. On the other hand he is getting on and I don't know how that would play.
I wonder if Ron Paul will go independant and be a conservative version of Nader. Poor old Ron, I like the guy (though not all his policies) but I think he might be too much of an idealist.
-
I wonder if Ron Paul will go independant and be a conservative version of Nader. Poor old Ron, I like the guy (though not all his policies) but I think he might be too much of an idealist.
Ron Paul has said with "99.9% certainty" that he wont go independent. I think at this point hes just trying to be a voice in the wind. He comes off, to me, as a breath of reality to the other guys in the debates. Like that clip in the last debate where he called out Mccain and Romney for arguing over "who said what when" when there are very real very serious issues in this country that need to be debated.
Also? Ralph Nader sucks the devil's cock in hell. I cannot stress this enough.
Can you give a quick summary of why you feel this way? I just think of him as someone youd like. Hes liberal on every issue and visions himself a genuine advocate for the common man.
-
Ron Paul has said with "99.9% certainty" that he wont go independent. I think at this point hes just trying to be a voice in the wind. He comes off, to me, as a breath of reality to the other guys in the debates. Like that clip in the last debate where he called out Mccain and Romney for arguing over "who said what when" when there are very real very serious issues in this country that need to be debated.
I saw that clip, it was a good scene. I think the tragic thing is that people (his own party especially) have dismissed him as being unrealistic and not addressing the 'real issues' (i.e. TERRORISM!!!!) when many of the things he speaks about are quite sensible and important, even if his own solutions to them are quite radical.
I saw an interview with him on the Daily show a while back and what struck me most was that when he's not talking about the things he's passionate about he seems to not have great focus in that old person kind of way. Not the best trait in a future commander in chief.
-
Ralph Nader sucks the devil's cock in hell because when the liberal vote gets split, we get President George W Bush in office. Who is not the person the liberals voted for, not even a little bit.
-
He makes poor points. I realized that after the first time I posted. Seriosuly, LFM, in these types of threads you should make your points clearer. We all know what you are saying, so just say it so you and A-CAP don't just do this bullshit, and if you are going to do it you will just get it out of the way.
Also, not my bumpersticker!
Ron Paul is just another guy who says stuff that is generally honest and consistent, at least it really feels like that. That is pretty cool, mainly the consistency thing. Those guys don't win.
Ralph Nader sucks the devil's cock in hell because when the liberal vote gets split, we get President George W Bush in office. Who is not the person the liberals voted for, not even a little bit.
That was the part that everybody knew, even A-CAP. But if LFM would have said that he wouldn't have said shit.
-
On the subject of Nader.
It is all well and good to stand for a bunch of nice things that I mostly agree with.
It is quite another to grandstand on news channels and wag your finger and feel really awesome about yourself and make a bunch of promise that no one who can actually win would ever be able to make... and get just enough sheep to follow your egotistical ass to set history back forty years so that they can "make their stand" with you.
As an advocate, as an author, as a talking head? Top-notch.
As a supremely arrogant douchenozzle who put his ego ahead of not letting George fuck*ng W fuck*ng Bush be the goddamned president of the largest military power in the world? Punch in the fuck*ng mouth.
Sometimes history is not about trying in vain to more ten steps forward at once and blowing the whole hoss-show in the process, rather it is about holding ground until it is safe to move slowly forward again.
I have a lot of ideals and a lot of beliefs but... change can't come all at once. People who promise that it will, magically, are either fuck*ng completely nuts or just grandstanding about it because they know that it'll get them on the teevee, throwing around a lot of promises they'll never have to fulfill because they can't win.
That is bush league bullshit.
Denny Kooch knows the score... you get into the mix to get some ideas in when you can but when the chips are down, you get the fuck out of the way and smile while you're fuckin' doing it.
The way to get your ideals made into reality is a long hard series of slogs, not the promise of some fuckin' douchebag cutting the brakes on America just so that he can wag his finger and feel good about himself and leave us barrelling out of control, unsafe at any speed.
Fuck. Ralph. Nader.
-
On the subject of Nader.
It is all well and good to stand for a bunch of nice things that I mostly agree with.
It is quite another to grandstand on news channels and wag your finger and feel really awesome about yourself and make a bunch of promise that no one who can actually win would ever be able to make... and get just enough sheep to follow your egotistical ass to set history back forty years so that they can "make their stand" with you.
I don't remember, did he even get to debate? He wasn't even on the ballot in my state. I had to go out of my way to find a story about him that wasn't about him ruining the democrats chances.
As an advocate, as an author, as a talking head? Top-notch.
Huh, he seems good at a lot of things.
As a supremely arrogant douchenozzle who put his ego ahead of not letting George fuck*ng W fuck*ng Bush be the goddamned president of the largest military power in the world? Punch in the fuck*ng mouth.
Oh, shit, nevermind. Seems like a punch in the mouth would be kinda something that Bush would do. I recall reading studies that showed most of his votes came from people who otherwise wouldn't have voted, at least in Florida where it mattered. This could be bullshit. Since you are the one wanting to punch a dude you don't know, you should tell me how Nader, who has done all of these great things, is worse then Democratic voters who didn't think their vote mattered, or the Supreme Court, or disenfranchised voters or the ballot style or whatever.
Sometimes history is not about trying in vain to more ten steps forward at once and blowing the whole hoss-show in the process, rather it is about holding ground until it is safe to move slowly forward again.
Yeah, sometimes, I guess. Sometimes crazy ass wars or other disputes bring about change. Generally it is something hell of chaotic though, and, well, maybe Nader helped yet. You know what brought about the Civil Rights era as much as anything else? WWII, because African Americans got jobs and they weren't going back down easily. Do you know why it lasted? Because brave people said fuck off to people who said the shit you are saying now.
I have a lot of ideals and a lot of beliefs but... change can't come all at once. People who promise that it will, magically, are either fuck*ng completely nuts or just grandstanding about it because they know that it'll get them on the teevee, throwing around a lot of promises they'll never have to fulfill because they can't win.
Well, that is bullshit.
That is bush league bullshit.
If I would have said bush league would that have made my point better?
Denny Kooch knows the score... you get into the mix to get some ideas in when you can but when the chips are down, you get the fuck out of the way and smile while you're fuckin' doing it.
He dropped out early after spending money to do a recount in New Hampshire after voting irregularities involving the machine vs. non machine votes.
The way to get your ideals made into reality is a long hard series of slogs, not the promise of some fuckin' douchebag cutting the brakes on America just so that he can wag his finger and feel good about himself and leave us barrelling out of control, unsafe at any speed.
The part you don't recognize is that this only works if your ideas are the same or similar to those you are blowing to move up. Cutting the breaks how exactly? Seems like Nader has done a lot of good for our country, as much as any others going for president. Why would he try to cut the breaks now? He is one of the reasons we have breaks that work like we do now, at least in our cars. Ralph Nader should do more, not less.
Fuck. Ralph. Nader.
Cliff Floyd is a good guy that does a lot of good, slow, safe-for-jerks-like-you work in Inner-Cities. If baseball and wars are the same to you, maybe you shouldn't act so damn morally superior to people who do stuff actively to improve the way our (including your) world works, especially if they actually believe what they are doing.
-
it's also really interesting how... the kids I know who are all cynical and jaded and stuff are all ga-ga for Obama. All wearing big buttons and stickers, all encouraging people to get out and vote and make their voices heard.
Come on, guys. If you can't be cynical and jaded all the time, I can't be naive and credulous all the time, and then our whole friendship is out of sync.
-
Isn't there a saying somewhere to the effect of "cynics are all incurable romantics at heart?"
-
I think most people would vote for a man with black skin before a woman with... ovaries and feelings.
I am afraid that this is correct. Also, remember, Obama is only half black. We'll never sneak a woman in that way.
And - um, is Ralph Nader running?
-
And - um, is Ralph Nader running?
Nope.
-
I am afraid that this is correct.
I almost slapped my roommate when he went on a thing about how we don't need anyone crying in the oval office, and then imitated her "crying" when they asked her that question in New Hampshire.
-
I almost slapped my roommate when he went on a thing about how we don't need anyone crying in the oval office, and then imitated her "crying" when they asked her that question in New Hampshire.
I am with him. We do not need someone crying in the oval office. Can you just imagine what our enemies would do with that footage? I think it is much more effective to have people taking charge in a situation than people crying when stressed. Seriously though, if she cries after a couple months of just running for office, what is she going to do in a real crisis? It isn't about being male or female here, its about how someone handles stress. The New Hampshire primary was so overwhelming she had a break down? But global tensions with nuclear nations... that shell be able to take in stride?
-
We do not need someone crying in the oval office.
And of course, men never cry. So that'll take care of that.
-
have you actually seen the video? she pauses for a moment, and then keeps talking. She isn't "crying," she isn't "breaking down," she maybe chokes up for 2 seconds. It's been blown completely out of proportion and is accepted as the truth because people believe that she would cry, she's only a woman after all.
Has President Bush ever cried in the Oval office? probably not. Maybe he should, though.
-
And of course, men never cry. So that'll take care of that.
Like I said, it has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with how a person will handle stress in the most stressful job.
Both of you are making her sex the issue, thats not the point im making.
-
I think that the majority of Americans want an old, rich, white dude as president.
Why is that a completely unacceptable thing to want in a president, but the millions of people who say stuff like "Im voting for hillary because its time for a woman" or "Im voting for obama because hes black" is totally okay and progressive? I think all three of these are weak reasons to choose a president, but I question why its ok for people to rant on about the latter two but should be ashamed of the first.
-
Like I said, it has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with how a person will handle stress in the most stressful job.
Both of you are making her sex the issue, thats not the point im making.
The "crying" episode is display of emotion, just like Howard Dean's primal scream 4 years ago.
I liked the humanity Dean showed when he let loose, and while I'm not a fan of Clinton, I don't think her reaction was planned or scripted. I think it was sincere.
That said, Dean's emotional outburst may have cost him the election, and I don't see why the fact that Clinton is a woman should change whether or not people are willing to accept her emotional display.
So, I guess I agree with acap?
Happy Birthday. Don't get used to it. ;)
-
I agree with a-cap here. To not vote for someone based on their social status and skin color is just as weak as voting for someone based on the same. Vote for who you think most closely aligns with your beliefs, or at least someone who you can stomach in office.
As far as the US not wanting a black man or a woman as president, I'm pretty sure that that's overwhelmingly false. If Colin Powell ever decided to get off his ass and run, we'd have a black president. People will vote for who represents them, and who they think can win. It's just that there is rarely a candidate of color or a woman that has the base of support and the broad appeal necessary to run a competitive campaign. I think that America, in general, is ready for a non-white or woman president. The question is, will it be Barak or Hillary? I guess we'll find out in November.
-
I agree with a-cap here.
So, I guess I agree with acap?
Its only my birthday once a year, I guess.
-
That said, Dean's emotional outburst may have cost him the election, and I don't see why the fact that Clinton is a woman should change whether or not people are willing to accept her emotional display.
Yeah, but I think it does. And what's noteworthy is that prior to this, people complained that she was cold and unfeeling... which is not OK for a woman. But one slight display of emotion and now she's too hysterical to rule the country. It seems to me that there's no personality type that's both acceptable for a woman in this country, and also acceptable for a president. The sets don't intersect. Yet.
I hope I am wrong. I hope I just see it this way because I am Old and that all you younguns are accurately reporting the mood of your generation. I hope if Hillary loses, it's for the same reason she'd lose if she was a man, which is that she has a really lousy stage presence and no one wants to face listening to her on television for four long years.
In other news... it is reported that several hundred people in Virginia called to complain that their polling places were not open. It was explained to them that this was because their primary is not until next week. You gotta love a well informed electorate, huh?
-
My most neat and tidy metaphor for Nader is as such:
Yes, it is awesome to be an ambulance driver. It is awesome to be a good one.
But if you want to grandstand and go eighty miles an hour to get a kid having an asthma attack to the hospital quickly because you want to be a hero and you run over and kill ten people on the way to the hospital?
Then fuck you.
Your going heroically above and beyond the call of duty to help Little Billy doesn't change the fact that you are a murderer.
Also, he has said he will run if Clinton gets the nomination. Still. STILL!
Dude wants to kill again, to extend the above metaphor.
(Cliff Floyd let Willie Randolph put him on the 2006 NLCS roster when he couldn't play, so that he could be a trooper and a hero and when the chips were down, Willie used him and he sucked when some other pinch-hitter might'a done SOMETHING. Ripped my goddamn heart out just to look like a guy playing heroically wounded. He can eat Satan's dick in hell. I do not have to be reasonable about sports, sports are not here for being reasonable about, in fact, they are there so that there is something we can safely vent our unreasonableness through.)
-
I'm sure I've said this before somewhere, but I wish we could change the way primaries are timed. This rush to "be the earliest" business is silly. I say we let Iowa and New Hampshire go first for auld lang syne, then everyone else gets in a lottery for 7-10 blocks through the spring. That should give candidates the spacing to tune their messages, states like Florida and Michigan won't get their delegates taken away for being rude and pushing to the front of the line, and various states will get to take turns being irrelevant (or critical) at the end of the process.
-
Why is that a completely unacceptable thing to want in a president, but the millions of people who say stuff like "Im voting for hillary because its time for a woman" or "Im voting for obama because hes black" is totally okay and progressive? I think all three of these are weak reasons to choose a president, but I question why its ok for people to rant on about the latter two but should be ashamed of the first.
If you're spending all your daddy's money on that expensive degree, and you still can't grasp basic concepts about oppression or learn a tiny bit of history, then damn. I'm not taking your bullshit bait.
-
If you're spending all your daddy's money on that expensive degree, and you still can't grasp basic concepts about oppression or learn a tiny bit of history, then damn. I'm not taking your bullshit bait.
I pay for college myself, thanks though at trying to insult me, because youve made yourself look foolish for assuming something about me. The last dollar I got from my father was when his life insurance paid out, and that went to hospital bills for my mom.
If you still can't grasp concepts of how racism against the majority is still racism, then damn, Im not taking your bullshit either.
-
how racism against the majority is still racism
Dude, c'mon. I realize that on a dude's birthday, he generally gets a one-time trolling pass but c'mon.
Seriously, don't abuse that birthday privledge with definition abuse like that.
-
This is the Politics thread, not Personal Abuse, people. Please don't make me lock it just when I was enjoying how much of it is being spent on Ralph Nader when he isn't even running.
-
Dude, c'mon. I realize that on a dude's birthday, he generally gets a one-time trolling pass but c'mon.
Seriously, don't abuse that birthday privledge with definition abuse like that.
What? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+racism&btnG=Google+Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+racism&btnG=Google+Search).
The definition of racism is pretty clear. Choosing to vote FOR someone because of their race is just as ridiculous as choosing to vote AGAINST someone for their race.
Im here saying racism in politics is bad, and still LFM says im trolling?
-
My problem with Hillary crying is that it seemed completely staged, cynical and calculating. I'd respect her more if I thought it had been a genuine display of emotion, but I don't see either of the Clintons engaging in something so spontaneous in the midst of a campaign.
-
I've got to agree with Peter Parker here: voting for someone based upon their gender or race is wrong, nnn'kay?
-
I don't know that racism is the right word, but I got to agree with acap.
re:Nader- I was just trying to say like everything you said was wrong or debatable, trying to prove a point that you need to be more clear LFM. I mean, I understand how you feel, but if you can't make one reasonable argument why not just tell us how you feel instead of writing a page of bullshit.
-
Yeah, but I think it does. And what's noteworthy is that prior to this, people complained that she was cold and unfeeling... which is not OK for a woman. But one slight display of emotion and now she's too hysterical to rule the country. It seems to me that there's no personality type that's both acceptable for a woman in this country, and also acceptable for a president. The sets don't intersect. Yet.
This is exactly what I am saying.
Right now I'm just imagining "My name is Barack Obama, and I'm withdrawing from the race. In fact, statisticians have told me that I should have spent more time trying to encourage college students who come from states with extremely late primaries, like North Carolina, to vote in states where they go to college, which have early primaries. IF ONLY I'D KNOWN."
-
This is the Politics thread, not Personal Abuse, people. Please don't make me lock it just when I was enjoying how much of it is being spent on Ralph Nader when he isn't even running.
I'm 100% behind Womb@. Also, I have the power to not only lock threads, but also to delete posts & entire threads, and to reduce any offending parties' can and post counts to zero, if the mood strikes.
Don't tempt me. There have been multiple transgressions here and I think (hope!) those responsible know who they are.
I fear some of us have fallen into the trap of assuming malicious intent when none is present. Let's stick to the words on the page, please, and not the ones between the lines. In a setting devoid of body language and vocal intonation, we have to be particularly careful about how we communicate.
The next warning I give will be in the form of PMs to anyone making personal attacks. Please route any further conflict through me (use the Report Post button) and please avoid trying to hash things out in public. This is why we have moderators, people. I enjoy the company of everyone here and I'd hate to see any member get pushed out because some of us can't keep a level head.
I'd like to see some apologies roll through this thread but I will settle for an increase in civility.
Or Else.
-
I'll give you two metaphors, okay?
If you are on a train going seventy miles an hour, heading west, and you say that... well, I'm just standing still here in this train... you are not being intellectually honest. Just because you are personally standing still does not mean that the situation isn't moving you at seventy miles an hour.
You can't be neutral about the topic of movement if you're sitting in a speeding train.
There is a child and there is a hungry tiger and they are in a small pen. You argue that you are "not taking sides" by not intervening... but by not aiding the child, you are functionally taking the tiger's side and letting the child die unopposed because... without outside assistance, that child doesn't have a prayer.
By declaring yourself "being-blind" about the child being a child and the tiger being a tiger, you are taking the side of the tiger.
Racism, in most contexts and certainly in the context of a political contest, is not anything as simple as that empty textbook definition that you are trying to troll with, by throwing out the softball of a ridiculously oversimplified definition of the word "racism" and seeing if anyone swings.
Racism, in this context, is not merely about the colour of skin or a colour of skin but about all kinds of complex power dynamics attached to those cultural differences.
To throw your hands up and say "by noticing race or gender at all, YOU'RE being the -ists!" is to be standing on a speeding train and to say that you're not moving.
You're way too smart a dude than to claim something like that and so, yeah, you're being intentionally provocative and hiding behind a "word" without proper context as your justification for it.
Racism is not Racism. A is not A. Context is everything.
EDIT: If the consensus is that I should stop discussing this, I definitely will but... I honestly believe that there's intellectual dishonesty at least partially just to start an argument.
-
Gotta agree with a-cap too. "I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's black." "I'm voting for John McCain because he's white." One of these is progressive, the other is racist. But they both say the same thing. "I support one candidate over the other because of his race."
-
I am coming out pro child and pro tiger. Both are equally delicious.
-
Stop the metaphors please, say what you want to say and you can argue if you want (well, this is just my opinion, I don't know what is acceptable). You are not saying anything until the last three sentences, and even then you could be much clearer. This is good when talking about sports or achewood or music, not so much politics. Please. Please.
Focusing on race/gender is bad whether it is racist/sexist or not. That is my opinion.
Edit: Who voted today/ in a previous primary? If you did, and you feel comfortable, who did you vote for? I chickened out and voted for Obama, though I really, really wanted to vote for Kucinich. I spend at least ten minutes in the booth thinking, pragmatism won in the end. Possibly another thread so we could do this anonymous and see who the touamb choice for president is?
-
I am coming out pro child and pro tiger. Both are equally delicious.
A-CAP WANTS TO EAT BLACK PEOPLE AND... RACISTS!
(is that what the tigers were? racists? but... they weren't on the train?)
-
(is that what the tigers were? racists? but... they weren't on the train?)
heheheheeh
-
A-CAP WANTS TO EAT BLACK PEOPLE AND... RACISTS!
(is that what the tigers were? racists? but... they weren't on the train?)
To be fair you should have heard what that kid was saying about the tiger, he was practically asking for it.
-
All: "I will run so fast when you chase me that you will turn into butter"...Wait, wrong racist thing about tigers and children.
LFM, I don't agree with about 65% of what you say about politics, but keep goin' with the metaphors if you like. They're what make your internet alter-ego interesting.
-
This is exactly what I am saying.
Right now I'm just imagining "My name is Barack Obama, and I'm withdrawing from the race. In fact, statisticians have told me that I should have spent more time trying to encourage college students who come from states with extremely late primaries, like North Carolina, to vote in states where they go to college, which have early primaries. IF ONLY I'D KNOWN."
This was A Thing at my SO's old work. Part of their campus program was encouraging college kids to vote where they go to school. Since you're living there the majority of the year for 4+ years it only makes sense. And since younger people tend to be more liberal it can sway a vote if the colleges are in areas that are otherwise more conservative. So local conservative groups would run their own programs telling kids that it's illegal for them to vote at college*.
Of course most students were completely unaware of either side of the argument. I know I was.
*if you ALSO vote at home.
-
Who, exactly, has said they're voting for Obama because he's black, or for Clinton because she's a woman? Do you have interviews with these people? Polls? I don't doubt that a few such people exist, but I think this supposed block of single-issue voters (that issue being the gender or race of the candidate) is a lot smaller than you make it out to be.
Also, what Wombat said about criticism of Hillary as too *****ic one day, too emotional the next. There's very much a double standard there.
-
Sorry LFM, most of my arguments online involve arguing about arguments and such. Mainly I was just saying if you write like you do there will be an argument with A-CAP, then I argued with you.
We should talk about politics again though. This democratic race is pretty awesome right now.
-
Hey, what do you know, it's April and we still don't have a candidate on the Democratic side.
-
Or, conversely, the Republicans fielded such a weak slate that their presumptive nominee is already alone. I'd rather they were in the same boat with the dems so we could get some debate about immigration.
-
I recently found out that McCain is the only candidate who has said that he will not issue signing statements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Presidential_usage). People, this is huge if you like your government to follow the Constitution. Of course, candidates often say things that they do not follow when they are in office, but still.
-
He also said that the open-ended occupation of a nation in the throes of civil war... where the only thing all the sides agree on is wanting us out... is completely awesome.
There are times when little ideological notions are awesome and there are times when we gotta focus on the grim meat-hook issues and hope that the others can get fixed later.
Are we gonna get out of Iraq and not get into Iran, are we going to get a Supreme Court that allows women to keep their reproductive rights, are we going to make progress on single-payer health care?
Everything else is... important but of a second, third or lesser importance, in my eyes.
-
Asherdan, in that last comment, you have summed up what it means to be a Mets fan.
Predict disaster. If success comes, you can be happy for success. If disaster comes, you called it.
Everyone wins.
-
signing statements have always really bothered me. I spent a depressingly long time trying to explain to my US Gov class why they are not good.
-
Nedra Pickler?