US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III

[financeguy]

But you can imagine Hillary voters voting for him?? Seriously, on what planet? He stands for virtually everything in 180 degree opposition to her platform.

Including the war. Hillary, the well know 'far leftist', is very much a war monger candidate.

 

[2861U2]

Ah yes, the good ole VLWC.

I wouldn't put it past your crowd to bomb a few buildings and blame it on the Moslems.

Like on 9/11, right?

 

[financeguy]

eta: Especially after that idiot Nader and his idiot followers put Bush in the White House.

Er, no. I think you'll find that would've been the massive electoral fraud.

 

[financeguy]

Like on 9/11, right?

Putting words in my mouth, nice.

Mind you, for the sake of argument, if I were to suggest that 9/11 was an 'inside job' then according to some polls, a majority of Americans would agree with me.

Though in actual fact, I don't really know what precisely happened on 9/11 (and neither, I suspect, do you.)

 

[financeguy]

disenfranchised white men

It's interesting that this rather insulting comment about Ron Paul's supporters, which does not appear to be said in jest, goes unremarked on FYM.

If someone remarked jovially that Hillary might be likely to attract the lesbian vote, would such a comment pass unnoticed?

 

[BVS]

If someone remarked jovially that Hillary might be likely to attract the lesbian vote, would such a comment pass unnoticed?

Probably.

 

[martha]

There are a lot more scared white guys than lesbians in the US.

 

[financeguy]

There are a lot more scared white guys than lesbians in the US.

But what are they scared of?

 

[BVS]

But what are they scared of?

Losing their advantage...

 

[financeguy]

Losing their advantage...

why would they be Ron Paul supporters?

 

[martha]

why would they be Ron Paul supporters?

Look deep. He represents what they want: fewer restrictions on who can be discriminated against, all couched in the rhetoric of "states' rights" which has been the thrust of white supremacists for years. Ron wants to extend "states' rights" to include the ability to prevent gay people from getting married. He has been friendly to racist beliefs in his past, although he's gently disavowed this recently. He's what many frightened white guys want: someone who understands the perceived loss of the hegemony of white men.

 

[financeguy]

Look deep. He represents what they want: fewer restrictions on who can be discriminated against, all couched in the rhetoric of "states' rights" which has been the thrust of white supremacists for years. Ron wants to extend "states' rights" to include the ability to prevent gay people from getting married. He has been friendly to racist beliefs in his past, although he's gently disavowed this recently. He's what many frightened white guys want: someone who understands the perceived loss of the hegemony of white men.

In other threads, you've argued that white men very much still enjoy near-hegemony in the US.

And yet, Ron Paul - the preferred white man's candidate, according to you - has little access to mainstream media, is still very much a fringe candidate, and is largely ignored on network TV (I think Fox News have done the very occasional interview with him). It's odd that these all-powerful white men have such control of the airwaves but don't bother pushing their favoured candidate.

There seems to be a slight inconsistency here somewhere!

The neo-cons have been planning from day one to mischaracterize Paul as a white supremacist. It's disturbing how successful their propaganda is becoming.

 

[phillyfan26]

why would they be Ron Paul supporters?

Yeah, I'd presume there are better alternatives for the demographic Martha's bringing up than Ron Paul.

 

[anitram]

Yeah, I'd presume there are better alternatives for the demographic Martha's bringing up than Ron Paul.

There was an interesting poll done of his supporters that I saw maybe 3-4 weeks ago and it was overwhelmingly men (white) of a certain age. I don't want to speak in details because I honestly don't remember but I remember noticing that it wasn't senior citizen men (65+), but largely the 20-40 group.

They obviously find him attractive in ways that minorities and women voters don't. What particularly about him attracts them is probably arguable.

 

[anitram]

If someone remarked jovially that Hillary might be likely to attract the lesbian vote, would such a comment pass unnoticed?

Well I doubt that Hillary would attract that constituency, but you're certainly free to argue it to be the case.

 

[martha]

In other threads, you've argued that white men very much still enjoy near-hegemony in the US.

And yet, Ron Paul - the preferred white man's candidate, according to you - has little access to mainstream media, is still very much a fringe candidate, and is largely ignored on network TV (I think Fox News have done the very occasional interview with him). It's odd that these all-powerful white men have such control of the airwaves but don't bother pushing their favoured candidate.

There seems to be a slight inconsistency here somewhere!

The neo-cons have been planning from day one to mischaracterize Paul as a white supremacist. It's disturbing how successful their propaganda is becoming.

Go reread my post. I did say "many white guys." I never said he enjoyed the support of the media. You asked why I thought scared white guys might like him. I answered you. Nowhere did I say that all white men support him; nowhere did I say that he's a white supremacist. Check out the Ron Paul thread for further information about what Paul has said in the past about black American men.

 

[Infinity]

I was starting to worry a bit about Obama because he had some sketchy poll results in the last week or so. Definitely wasn't going great. But this morning's poll is fantastic, and although Kucinich isn't polling well in Iowa, it's something.

I really hope Hillary slips up one of these days, Barack is much much much better than her.

 

[BVS]

Look deep. He represents what they want: fewer restrictions on who can be discriminated against, all couched in the rhetoric of "states' rights"

 

[Infinity]

Thats because he is more for equality for the individual and he believes in viewing every person as an individual rather than by race, sex, sexual orientation, age, or anything else.

 

[martha]

Thats because he is more for equality for the individual and he believes in viewing every person as an individual rather than by race, sex, sexual orientation, age, or anything else.

Uh-huh. Yeah. That's what it is.

 

[Infinity]

Uh-huh. Yeah. That's what it is.

Good, you agree.

 

[BVS]

Thats because he is more for equality for the individual and he believes in viewing every person as an individual rather than by race, sex, sexual orientation, age, or anything else.

You can't really believe that, can you?

 

[Infinity]

You can't really believe that, can you?

Yes I can, why can't you?

 

[BVS]

Yes I can, why can't you?

Maybe we should go back to the day where we allow segregation.

That's what he is setting it up for with his stances.

You can twist it all you want, but if you allow prejudices to empower legislation, then you are supporting those prejudices.

 

[Infinity]

Maybe we should go back to the day where we allow segregation.

That's what he is setting it up for with his stances.

You can twist it all you want, but if you allow prejudices to empower legislation, then you are supporting those prejudices.

I'm not twisting anything. Under a President Paul we wouldn't allow segregation, because each individual would have equal rights. What he is saying is that we shouldn't have any classified "hate crimes" or special "minority rights." So that means minorities shouldn't have more opportunities than whites in college applications, for example.

Segregation wouldn't be fulfilling individual liberties. So that has nothing to do with this.

 

[BVS]

I'm not twisting anything. Under a President Paul we wouldn't allow segregation, because each individual would have equal rights. What he is saying is that we shouldn't have any classified "hate crimes" or special "minority rights." So that means minorities shouldn't have more opportunities than whites in college applications, for example.

Segregation wouldn't be fulfilling individual liberties. So that has nothing to do with this.

Read Melon's post, I think you may have missed it earlier:

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4846086#post4846086

 

[verte76]

Nader is supporting Edwards. I guess that means he's not going to run for president this year.

 

[2861U2]

Apparently Mrs. Clinton had a bit of a mix-up last week.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946790/posts

"If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer December 28.

"He could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election," she told ABC's George Stephanopolous December 30.

But, of course, the upcoming elections are for parliament. Musharraf has already been re-elected. Isn't this the woman who has so much foreign policy experience? The woman is clueless.

 

[Irvine511]

at least she knew who Musharraf is.

[q]George W Bush had definitely not been briefed for all the questions a local TV interview fired at him on the campaign trail.

The Republican frontrunner in the United States presidential elections was subjected to a little foreign policy quiz he obviously did not enjoy.

Asked by the reporter of a Boston television station to name four international statesmen recently in the news, Mr Bush got 25% right - if you consider first names a mere luxury.

First off, Andy Hiller, political reporter for WHDH-TV in Boston, Massachusetts, wanted to know whether the potential next president of the US could name the president of Chechnya.

Mr Bush: "No, can you?"

Instead, Mr Hiller fired off his second question. "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"

Bush: "Yeah, Lee." His score so far: 50%.

But then came the crunch question: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Mr Bush needed a breather. "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?" Hiller:

Bush was still amused after the first question
"No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots, " the reporter tried to put his victim at ease.

"The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent," the Republican candidate offered.

Good news, but not an answer, and the interviewer insisted: "Can you name him?"

"General. I can't name the general. General" was all Mr Bush had to offer.

The reporter tried the another country in the same region, but the Indian prime minister's name did not come to George Bush either.

"The new prime minister of India is - no." [/q]

 

[Infinity]

The guy thinks he knows how to fight terror. Can't even name the leaders of India and Pakistan. Hillary is a lot of bullshit too, but this guy, nobody will ever be as dumb as him. What a disgrace.