PDA

View Full Version : iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?



FRED
11-04-08, 09:27 AM
http://www.itulip.com/images/election2008.jpgiTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

This is a private poll of iTulip forum members. Votes are private, that is, member names are not shown in the vote count.

Thanks for voting!

nathanhulick
11-04-08, 09:34 AM
No options for those of us who are not voting for Socialist1 or Socialist2?

BoggleFed
11-04-08, 10:11 AM
None of the above.

skidder
11-04-08, 10:14 AM
The constitutional party is not registered here in NH so I'm writing in Ron Paul.

labasta
11-04-08, 10:16 AM
I am not America, but if I were, I would vote for a third party just to put a spanner in the works. I wouldn't let the system try and have it so easy. I wouldn't belong to a party either. I always found that a bizzare concept.

Do you have a list of the candidates and what they stand for (policies) in the US? I'd like an A4 sheet of paper with their policy summaries at the very least. At least then if I am backing a horse, I'm not just taking a random punt.

Also, the odds of turning the economy around calculated by the iTulip team would help to. Obama is 4:1, but this guy is 5:4 etc.

If only, eh? Inform the voters hahahahah!

Raz
11-04-08, 10:17 AM
Barack Obama will be a social disaster, and possibly an economic disaster as well. If you like "W" then you'll LOVE John McCain! Since the idiocy of Iraq is apparently not sufficient for him, maybe he will get us into a war with Russia over poor, oppressed Georgia, since every place on this planet must be of vital national interest to the United States, right? And neither one of these pseudo-socialists is living in the real economic world.
I have decided to vote for the only available candidate who represents me: Chuck Baldwin - The Constitution Party.

Master Shake
11-04-08, 10:19 AM
I live in MD so my vote really doesn't count. If it did, I'd hold my nose and vote McCain since I think Obama is an insubstantial, crypto-Marxist. As it is, I will be voting for Bob Barr.

FRED
11-04-08, 10:25 AM
No options for those of us who are not voting for Socialist1 or Socialist2?

Added "Other candidate" or "Not Voting" choices.

raja
11-04-08, 10:27 AM
Obama

He's intelligent, calm under attack, and not one of the good ole boys.

His lack of experience doesn't bother me, since I think he's smart enough to choose experienced advisers and listen to them. If he's wrong in some decisions, it won't be because he hasn't given it careful consideration and weighed all sides.

Regards his campaign funding from Wall Street . . . hey, if they want to give him money, why not? Doesn't mean he has to do what they say.

I'm outraged by the economic favoritism accorded the wealthy, and I would gladly lose some of my own money to see those criminals face justice . . . or at least be prevented from committing future theft. I'm hoping Obama will do that . . . .

Also, I like the fact that he's half black. How's that for embracing diversity . . . . ?

*T*
11-04-08, 10:31 AM
I can't vote as I'm not a US citizen :)

A popular sentiment amongst my friends would like to see Obama win simply because he's black and they would like to see America show that it's capable of electing someone who isn't white.

It would restore a lot of faith in the US amongst the ROW.

Shakespear
11-04-08, 10:33 AM
People surrounding Obama are far from being "crypto-Marxist". Brzezinski ????????????

Got to be kidding my friend :-)

orion
11-04-08, 10:36 AM
I reluctantly voted McCain. I am giving up on the GOP and pray a third party can develop that really does want smaller government and has a libertarian type stance on other issues. I see both parties as guilty of where we are today. Obama with his big fund raising obviously will be tied to special interests big time, no change there.

orion
11-04-08, 10:43 AM
How racist is this we vote for somebody's skin color? Why don't we elect Bambi so the world will love us? What about Obama reversing NAFTA, oh won't we be so popular if we start protectionism and stop buying all that foregin junk?

jk
11-04-08, 11:06 AM
i already voted- for obama.
along with other reasons cited by others here [temperament, intelligence, race*, etc] i will add that he is more likely, in cooperation with a strongly democratic congress, to quickly pass the "new, new deal" legislation that will be needed to ameliorate the unfolding economic crisis. he's also been straight in declaring that sacrifices will be required, and is an inspirational enough leader to sell that idea.





* i think that electing a black president would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country. it would also be a strong assertion of american ideals - where else in the developed world could a black child of a single mother become president?

orion
11-04-08, 11:11 AM
I just can't get past this race issue. Do we pick a latino next, or maybe an Asian, which is more deserving? Pick the man / woman for their ideals and leadership. I admire your clarity on Obama's real traits that qualify him for office but lets leave pity and show of compassion out of the equation.

algerwetmore
11-04-08, 11:30 AM
I hope you are right about a third party developing. James Howard Kunstler claims the Republican Party is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and that it may fall like the old Whig party.

I would hope at some point, the Republican party would drop the fundamentalist/evangelical theocracy, which is turning off many pragmatic
constitutionalists.

Master Shake
11-04-08, 11:44 AM
Ah, Zbiggy. A re-tread from the glorious Carter years.

vinoveri
11-04-08, 11:51 AM
I would've voted for Jennifer Lopez if she were running because she's hot, a testament to diversity, and could bring us all together as a country singin and dancin. Oh yeah, an I really liked that movie Anaconda; she showed some real leadership and courage in dealing with the carniverous giant serpent.

Will have to settle on voting for Ron Paul though.

Mn_Mark
11-04-08, 11:54 AM
The sentiment that electing a half-black man "would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country" is why, if Bush isn't the very last white man elected, he will be one of the last. It will be seen to be "reactionary" and regressive to elect a white man President - the argument will be that only a "person of color" can really understand the growing non-white population's needs and present the US in the proper light to foreign nations. And since 90% of the world's population is non-white and (largely) resentful of whites, we can expect them to always want a non-white as President. This isn't a one-time thing.

Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites. For example, after 200 years of white male Secretaries of State, we have not had a white man in that position since Warren Christopher in 1996. Since then we've had the first white woman Secretary, the first black male Secretary, and now the first black female Secretary. It is possible that Obama will choose a white male in order to try to persuade people that he is not a leftist extremist, but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.

jk
11-04-08, 12:02 PM
The sentiment that electing a half-black man "would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country" is why, if Bush isn't the very last white man elected, he will be one of the last. It will be seen to be "reactionary" and regressive to elect a white man President - the argument will be that only a "person of color" can really understand the growing non-white population's needs and present the US in the proper light to foreign nations. And since 90% of the world's population is non-white and (largely) resentful of whites, we can expect them to always want a non-white as President. This isn't a one-time thing.

Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites. For example, after 200 years of white male Secretaries of State, we have not had a white man in that position since Warren Christopher in 1996. Since then we've had the first white woman Secretary, the first black male Secretary, and now the first black female Secretary. It is possible that Obama will choose a white male in order to try to persuade people that he is not a leftist extremist, but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.
to reiterate something i've said on occasion in economic discussions here: one of the things i like about itulip is that once in a while it lets me feel like a relative optimist, something i don't often experience.

Raz
11-04-08, 12:12 PM
... but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.

Same thing happened in my city, too. And I agree with EVERYTHING you said, Mn_Mark. But I knew our country was finished decades ago. Once the masses realize that they can elect people who will shower them with goodies by taxing others (Democrats) or mortgaging us all (Republicans AND Democrats) the republic becomes a democracy - and no democracy (the tyranny of 51%) in all of human history has survived.
Equal opportunity will now be officially abandoned for egalitarianism.

metalman
11-04-08, 12:12 PM
The sentiment that electing a half-black man "would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country" is why, if Bush isn't the very last white man elected, he will be one of the last. It will be seen to be "reactionary" and regressive to elect a white man President - the argument will be that only a "person of color" can really understand the growing non-white population's needs and present the US in the proper light to foreign nations. And since 90% of the world's population is non-white and (largely) resentful of whites, we can expect them to always want a non-white as President. This isn't a one-time thing.

Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites. For example, after 200 years of white male Secretaries of State, we have not had a white man in that position since Warren Christopher in 1996. Since then we've had the first white woman Secretary, the first black male Secretary, and now the first black female Secretary. It is possible that Obama will choose a white male in order to try to persuade people that he is not a leftist extremist, but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.

take it you're not into this 'change' then? :D

i say to my fellow conservatives, if we didn't want a liberal elected maybe we should not have elected administrations that perused policies that blew up the economy.

the economy under obama will melt down completely. 30+ years of corruption and foolishness will come down on his head.

how will he lead out of it? he can't, but he'll try. he'd better start by winding up for a big 'blood sweat and tears' speech on inauguration day so he doesn't get tarred for wrecking the economy. then he has 2 yrs to fix it, which he can't do... isn't possible to fix 30 years in 2.

so don't worry. your fear of perpetual non-whiteness are not likely to come true. too bad, because obama is all about merit, not race or what school you went to or your accent, and that's going to get lost.

we_are_toast
11-04-08, 12:20 PM
Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites.Nothing like laying your racism right out there on the table for the whole world to see!

Look at the polling data! Obama will probably get 93% of the black vote, a Dem typically gets 90%. McCain will probably get 53% of the white vote, pretty typical of a Repub.

The color that's important in this election is GREEN (or in my case, GOLD)! Everything is taking a back seat to the economy. Thankfully, you racist nut cases are becoming less and less relevant.

metalman
11-04-08, 12:29 PM
Same thing happened in my city, too. And I agree with EVERYTHING you said, Mn_Mark. But I knew our country was finished decades ago. Once the masses realize that they can elect people who will shower them with goodies by taxing others (Democrats) or mortgaging us all (Republicans AND Democrats) the republic becomes a democracy - and no democracy (the tyranny of 51%) in all of human history has survived.
Equal opportunity will now be officially abandoned for egalitarianism.

this 'generation we' (http://www.gen-we.com/) makes me nervous.


"In my travels around the world, I have been very impressed by today's young people. They are smart, caring, creative, and generous. I share the hope expressed by Greenberg and Weber that this new generation will help re-orient our planet and conquer the problems of poverty, war, and pollution that currently plague it."
Muhammad Yunus Founder of Grameen Bank and Co-Winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize
this movement is the kernel of the ultimate 'we' program... a socialism to grow to wipe out what's left of real capitalism once the money vaporises from the ponzy capitalism that paid for the gen-we's fantasy kumbaya techno utopia. let's see how generous they feel when they can't afford to put gas in the scion, the pay the cell phone or broadband cable bill.

look for a boom in amazon sales of das kapital.

metalman
11-04-08, 12:33 PM
Nothing like laying your racism right out there on the table for the whole world to see!

Look at the polling data! Obama will probably get 93% of the black vote, a Dem typically gets 90%. McCain will probably get 53% of the white vote, pretty typical of a Repub.

The color that's important in this election is GREEN (or in my case, GOLD)! Everything is taking a back seat to the economy. Thankfully, you racist nut cases are becoming less and less relevant.

it's a generational thing. you can tell old farts because they tend to pay attention to race. young folks don't give a shit. no surprise... since the 1970s every tv show and movie and ad celebrates the black/white good guy team and vilifies racists as stupid and ignorant. it's about time sentiments about race in the usa caught up with our merit based cultural values as americans. good riddince to the racist generations. gone forever.

Mn_Mark
11-04-08, 01:19 PM
"Thankfully, you racist nut cases are becoming less and less relevant."

"it's about time sentiments about race in the usa caught up with our merit based cultural values as americans. good riddince (sic) to the racist generations. gone forever. "

Tell that to the white South Africans. In 1994, 70% of them drank the white liberal koolaid and voted themselves into the political minority on the promise that if they would just stop being racists, the future would be all about merit and equality and reconciliation. Instead they now find themselves under siege, legally discriminated against in jobs, prohibited from owning more than 49% of their own family businesses (they have to find a black person to give 51% to), the victims of rampant crime, rape, and murder (with a 2-3% rate of solving the murders). The famous white South Africa liberal writers whose writings contributed to ending apartheid are moving away to Australia and Europe. They have seen firsthand what they did to their own people and now they are running away. Nice for them, not so nice for the people who can't afford to leave.

But you never hear about South Africa anymore. White western liberals prefer not to think about what has happened there in the wake of the adoption of their reform program. Or in Zimbabwe. There is a slow-motion anti-white genocide unfolding there, but it doesn't fit the liberal script so it's not discussed.

So we are in an era where young white people have been indoctrinated for the last several decades in their schools and in the mass media that the history of whites is shameful and that they must never think in terms of race - while blacks, latinos, and others openly identify with their own ethnic groups and interests, openly speak of themselves as a people based solely on race, openly push for special considerations based solely on race rather than merit. So we are going to have to go through the fire here, until young white people reach an age where they are trying to raise a family in safety with decent schools and without racial discrimination against whites. They say a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. There's a whole generation of young whites who have a lot of muggings coming their way. Right now they are in the full flush of youthful passion and idealism, scornful of older people (i.e. people with significant life experience) and sure that they have discovered new amazing truths that old fools can't see.

The easy conclusion is that there will probably never be a more disillusioned generation of people in American history than the generation of young whites who are voting for Obama. By the time they are in their middle age they will shake their heads sadly that they could have been so wrong.

WDCRob
11-04-08, 01:27 PM
Mark_MN... I'm laughing at the notion that the US hasn't been a racially polarized nation for its first 400+ years.

Nothing brings people together and puts the 'United' in the United States like Slavery, Jim Crow and genocide of indigenous populations I guess.

You could still be right about the political balkanization, but all you're really describing is those 'other' populations getting their hands on instruments of power they've previously been kept away from.

brucec42
11-04-08, 01:31 PM
I've written into the editors on more than one occasion to point out that the videos featured prominently on the front page of iTulip gave the impression to newcomers like myself that this was a left leaning website. I was told that this was not the case. I replied that even if it wasn't the intent, the result would be to attract a high proportion of the "stick it to George Bush no matter what it does to the country" leftist crowd. In other words, it would result in populating itulip with those ignorant of real-world economics and elitists who feel themselves above the damage that an Obama administration would inflict on the regular population. I mean really, who cares about people who aren't economists and investors for a living, right?

A quote from above posts sums up that mindset:

"I'm outraged by the economic favoritism accorded the wealthy, and I would gladly lose some of my own money to see those criminals face justice . . . or at least be prevented from committing future theft. I'm hoping Obama will do that . . . ."

This being the same Obama who championed the $700B(or is it $3T?) bailout. Yeah, he sounds like he'll really tighten the government belt and avoid a hyperinflation. A real stand up guy not swayed by populism is he.

Make no mistake. George Bush was a complete failure as a president. I wrote in Ron Paul as my state will likely not go Obama, and if it does the race will be a landslide for him anyway. Both of these guys will be disasters as president, but with a Democratic congress at least McCain could do far less damage and does have a modicum of experience. If you had to make a nose-holding pragmatic vote, that would be it.

So congratulations iTulip. Maybe Obama will send over a box of red berets and Che Guevara t-shirts as a thank you. The percentage of tinfoil-hat posts has increased over time, so my opinion is you blew it if your intent was to educate anyone.

It looks like our chickens are coming home to roost. 60% obama vs under 20% McCain. Yeah, you sure did manage to avoid looking biased to the left there, E.J. and co! Congratulations, you may now get a link at the Huffington Post.

Consider this my first installment under the Fairness doctrine. : )

ThePythonicCow
11-04-08, 01:37 PM
The sentiment that electing a half-black man...

Some of us will be casting our votes based on such considerations as the positions, experience, associations or moral character of the candidates, not their race.

The repeated insinuations by Obama and his supporters of racial bias in Obama's opponents is a sham, in my view, to distract from some other matters.

bpr
11-04-08, 01:38 PM
i say to my fellow conservatives, if we didn't want a liberal elected maybe we should not have elected administrations that perused policies that blew up the economy.

I say to my fellow left-of-liberal kooks: Keep you hands off MM's gold while looting. He's a smart and reasonable fellow, and we'll need a few like him to create an economy.:rolleyes:

Seriously, though, 40 years of privatization, fiscal irresponsibility, social-issue BS, and ill-equipped, ill-intentioned white guys have failed. The failure is real, and it is in the mirror.

Rantly McTirade
11-04-08, 01:39 PM
i already voted- for obama.
along with other reasons cited by others here [temperament, intelligence, race*, etc] i will add that he is more likely, in cooperation with a strongly democratic congress, to quickly pass the "new, new deal" legislation that will be needed to ameliorate the unfolding economic crisis. he's also been straight in declaring that sacrifices will be required, and is an inspirational enough leader to sell that idea.





* i think that electing a black president would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country. it would also be a strong assertion of american ideals - where else in the developed world could a black child of a single mother become president?


Barack Obama is actually biracial, he's as white as he is black. His, and the media's, avoiding that truth and going along with the 'he's black' line
shows the weakness of his candidacy-all he has to offer is the chance to
'make history', 'break new ground' and other marketing irrelevancies.
Well, that and an slightly greater increase in the welfare state(than the other side of the coin) and further cultural and social perversity which,
unlike the other side of the coin, he'll happily embrace(as opposed to issuing heated rhetoric against-and then silently embracing); the latter is
why the media are pimping him.

Rantly McTirade
11-04-08, 01:54 PM
I'd say MN Mark can be fairly accused of having a racial consciousness.
This has been be fine for everyone except whites. Has been.
If 'celebration' of racial groups is to continue, or even just plain recognition,you should expect whites(except the terminal guilt-trippers-and there's lots of those) to finally demand equal 'celebration'-or the actual irrelevancy of race in all public life(not likely based on human history). We'd actually all be treated the same, or at least 'on the content of our characters, not the color of our skin', to quote another well-known socialist.
Now that'd be 'change we can believe in'.:rolleyes:

brucec42
11-04-08, 01:54 PM
"Thankfully, you racist nut cases are becoming less and less relevant."

"it's about time sentiments about race in the usa caught up with our merit based cultural values as americans. good riddince (sic) to the racist generations. gone forever. "

Tell that to the white South Africans. In 1994, 70% of them drank the white liberal koolaid and voted themselves into the political minority on the promise that if they would just stop being racists, the future would be all about merit and equality and reconciliation. Instead they now find themselves under siege, legally discriminated against in jobs, prohibited from owning more than 49% of their own family businesses (they have to find a black person to give 51% to), the victims of rampant crime, rape, and murder (with a 2-3% rate of solving the murders). The famous white South Africa liberal writers whose writings contributed to ending apartheid are moving away to Australia and Europe. They have seen firsthand what they did to their own people and now they are running away. Nice for them, not so nice for the people who can't afford to leave.

But you never hear about South Africa anymore. White western liberals prefer not to think about what has happened there in the wake of the adoption of their reform program. Or in Zimbabwe. There is a slow-motion anti-white genocide unfolding there, but it doesn't fit the liberal script so it's not discussed.

So we are in an era where young white people have been indoctrinated for the last several decades in their schools and in the mass media that the history of whites is shameful and that they must never think in terms of race - while blacks, latinos, and others openly identify with their own ethnic groups and interests, openly speak of themselves as a people based solely on race, openly push for special considerations based solely on race rather than merit. So we are going to have to go through the fire here, until young white people reach an age where they are trying to raise a family in safety with decent schools and without racial discrimination against whites. They say a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. There's a whole generation of young whites who have a lot of muggings coming their way. Right now they are in the full flush of youthful passion and idealism, scornful of older people (i.e. people with significant life experience) and sure that they have discovered new amazing truths that old fools can't see.

The easy conclusion is that there will probably never be a more disillusioned generation of people in American history than the generation of young whites who are voting for Obama. By the time they are in their middle age they will shake their heads sadly that they could have been so wrong.


Mugabe wasn't stealing White's land and impoverishing the nation in the process. Remember, he was just "spreading it around".

Results matter. Intentions do not. We have a nation today of people scrambling to show that their good intentions are better than their peers, soas to acheive a higher social status, results be-damned.

And anyone who "follows" and believes everything that comes out of the mouth of any politician is a fool. You might as well "follow" a used car salesman.

ThePythonicCow
11-04-08, 01:55 PM
The easy conclusion is that there will probably never be a more disillusioned generation of people in American history than the generation of young whites who are voting for Obama. By the time they are in their middle age they will shake their heads sadly that they could have been so wrong.
You make some good points. It seems to some propagandists, mostly on the left, that allowing a straight, white, conservative, religious male in a position of power is the most racist, bigotted, homphobic, biased, sexist, stupid thing one can do. Once again, the meanings of words are turned on their heads.

However the skeptic in me is less confident that our Obama crazed youth will have that moment of awakening in their middle age. The schools, media, blogs, and (I hear tell) even some of the churches have so consistently led them left from the day of their birth that I doubt most of them will ever come to their senses.

Master Shake
11-04-08, 02:00 PM
this 'generation we' (http://www.gen-we.com/) makes me nervous.


this movement is the kernel of the ultimate 'we' program... a socialism to grow to wipe out what's left of real capitalism once the money vaporises from the ponzy capitalism that paid for the gen-we's fantasy kumbaya techno utopia. let's see how generous they feel when they can't afford to put gas in the scion, the pay the cell phone or broadband cable bill.

look for a boom in amazon sales of das kapital.

Gen We sounds like a bunch of easily lead Utopianistas.

Master Shake
11-04-08, 02:04 PM
"Thankfully, you racist nut cases are becoming less and less relevant."

"it's about time sentiments about race in the usa caught up with our merit based cultural values as americans. good riddince (sic) to the racist generations. gone forever. "

Tell that to the white South Africans. In 1994, 70% of them drank the white liberal koolaid and voted themselves into the political minority on the promise that if they would just stop being racists, the future would be all about merit and equality and reconciliation. Instead they now find themselves under siege, legally discriminated against in jobs, prohibited from owning more than 49% of their own family businesses (they have to find a black person to give 51% to), the victims of rampant crime, rape, and murder (with a 2-3% rate of solving the murders). The famous white South Africa liberal writers whose writings contributed to ending apartheid are moving away to Australia and Europe. They have seen firsthand what they did to their own people and now they are running away. Nice for them, not so nice for the people who can't afford to leave.

But you never hear about South Africa anymore. White western liberals prefer not to think about what has happened there in the wake of the adoption of their reform program. Or in Zimbabwe. There is a slow-motion anti-white genocide unfolding there, but it doesn't fit the liberal script so it's not discussed.

So we are in an era where young white people have been indoctrinated for the last several decades in their schools and in the mass media that the history of whites is shameful and that they must never think in terms of race - while blacks, latinos, and others openly identify with their own ethnic groups and interests, openly speak of themselves as a people based solely on race, openly push for special considerations based solely on race rather than merit. So we are going to have to go through the fire here, until young white people reach an age where they are trying to raise a family in safety with decent schools and without racial discrimination against whites. They say a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. There's a whole generation of young whites who have a lot of muggings coming their way. Right now they are in the full flush of youthful passion and idealism, scornful of older people (i.e. people with significant life experience) and sure that they have discovered new amazing truths that old fools can't see.

The easy conclusion is that there will probably never be a more disillusioned generation of people in American history than the generation of young whites who are voting for Obama. By the time they are in their middle age they will shake their heads sadly that they could have been so wrong.

+1. Preach on, brother!

Gnosis
11-04-08, 02:29 PM
Barack Obama will be a social disaster, and possibly an economic disaster as well. If you like "W" then you'll LOVE John McCain! Since the idiocy of Iraq is apparently not sufficient for him, maybe he will get us into a war with Russia over poor, oppressed Georgia, since every place on this planet must be of vital national interest to the United States, right? And neither one of these pseudo-socialists is living in the real economic world.
I have decided to vote for the only available candidate who represents me: Chuck Baldwin - The Constitution Party.

Yep, Remember the Constitution. Vote to uphold its principles.

Charles Mackay
11-04-08, 02:42 PM
Anyone who saw how the media marginalized third party candidates like Ross Perot and Harry Browne, or even Republican candidates running against the elite's agenda like Ron Paul will have to admit that what Clive Maund says below is true. Expect Obama to do the elite's bidding (since they put him office with money and media) and also expect our freedoms to be reduced even further thru taxes, regulation, rationing of healthcare, rationing of gasoline, wage and price controls, rent control, exchange controls, a national sales tax, and a full break with posse comitatus.


Why voting in the US elections is A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME ...
by Clive Maund
published November 1st, 2008.

The United States likes to portray itself as the bastion of freedom and champion of democracy, but if this were really true then there would be at least 6 or 8 different parties to choose from at election time, and given that it is now a country of over 300 million people a choice of at least 10 different parties would be more appropriate, but instead there are just two. Why is this? The reason comes down to the "concentration of power" issue that we addressed in an earlier article with respect to corporate American and the systematic disenfranchisement of its population. The reality is that the two remaining political parties, the Democratic and Republican parties are in fact one, and the only reason that the ultimate step is never taken and the parties merged is that with one party to vote for and an election being completely superfluous, even Joe Sixpack would realize that he is living in a dictatership. So the 2 remaining parties continue to dumbbell around each other for ever, maintaining the thinnest facade of democracy, and controlling the country for their elitist masters via their duopoly of power.

The plutocratic elites who control the United States and both the Democratic and Republican parties also have complete control over the media, whose job it is to maintain the illusion of democracy, especially during the farcical circus of the election campaign. They do this by playing up contrived and trivial differences between the parties and by playing up personalities who the voting public can identify with, a recent example of this crude but effective approach being the Alaskan Hockey mom Sarah Palin suddenly being thrust forward into the limelight, and intended to provide a counterpoint to the sagging old man who would be President, John McCain. At a time of life when he should be content to sit in a rocking chair on his front porch, and dead head the roses and perhaps give occasional advice to troubled young people, McCain intends to try to run a country of 300 million people. He looks like one long haul flight would finish him off. Although Obama would seem to be the better choice for President, on account of his youthful energy, generally positive dynamic attitude and eloquent use of English, the sad fact is that he is in the pockets of his plutocratic masters just as McCain is and must end up doing their bidding - if he wasn't his funding would have dried up and he would have been run into a ditch long ago. So with both parties and both candidates completely compromised and representing the same vested interests, it is clear that voting will accomplish absolutely nothing and change nothing - it is a complete and utter waste of time. The entire election campaign is a charade whose real purpose is to maintain the elites' stranglehold on power, whilst at the same time maintaining the illusion that the US is a free and fair

It is always good to end an essentially gloomy article on a positive note. Whoever wins the election and becomes the next President has got to be an improvement on the crass and imbecilic George W Bush, who only got the job through extreme corruption and graft. society, but otherwise it is a total waste of time and energy.

Basil
11-04-08, 02:54 PM
Barack Obama is actually biracial, he's as white as he is black. His, and the media's, avoiding that truth and going along with the 'he's black' line
shows the weakness of his candidacy-all he has to offer is the chance to
'make history', 'break new ground' and other marketing irrelevancies.
Well, that and an slightly greater increase in the welfare state(than the other side of the coin) and further cultural and social perversity which,
unlike the other side of the coin, he'll happily embrace(as opposed to issuing heated rhetoric against-and then silently embracing); the latter is
why the media are pimping him.

If you grow up half black in the United States, you suffer all the stigma that someone who is fully black would suffer. I am white as white can be, but grew up in DC, a very black city, and had several friends from mixed race families. Due to the manner in which they were treated by society, all of them experienced the world as a black man or woman when in public. Even light skin bi-racial African Americans who are wealthy, have gone to the best schools, drive nice cars, etc. are treated with disdain and bigotry in many parts of our country. I would imagine that has been a significant part of Obama's experience as well. In this way, he has experienced the world far more as a black man than as a white man.

What we see in the media is not an effort to avoid his bi-racial reality, but a reflection of the manner in which our society treats racial matters. To say they have avoided it is incorrect. There have been entire articles about his mother and how she raised him. To say he has avoided it is incorrect. His grandmother was even featured in some of his commercials. His manner of addressing this issue only when necessary has in fact been exemplary.

D-Mack
11-04-08, 03:00 PM
Ah, Zbiggy. A re-tread from the glorious Carter years.

He will probably use tha back door to visit the "script-reader-in-chief", like his old friend Kissinger did with Bush.




"One thing the book will tell us is that former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger is a regular visitor to President Bush," wrote Smith.

"The president likes to receive visits from Nixon's former and most famous aide, and he urges Dr. Kissinger to call him anytime he is in Washington," the column continued.

"This will come as a surprise to the many who think the president doesn't listen to anybody," Smith wrote.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Woodward_Henry_Kissinger_pays_regular_visits_0928. html

D-Mack
11-04-08, 03:10 PM
Anyone who saw how the media marginalized third party candidates like Ross Perot and Harry Browne, or even Republican candidates running against the elite's agenda like Ron Paul will have to admit that what Clive Maund says below is true. Expect Obama to do the elite's bidding (since they put him office with money and media) and also expect our freedoms to be reduced even further thru taxes, regulation, rationing of healthcare, rationing of gasoline, wage and price controls, rent control, exchange controls, a national sales tax, and a full break with posse comitatus.

...




I was surprised how much exposure Paul got, I remembered how Democratic challengers were marginalized and even arrested in the 90's watching Spin
Spin (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353&ei=_5wQSdfIBaKy2gL0nLmaCg&q=spin)

Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.

I guess now with the internet it got really hard to hide the truth.

bpr
11-04-08, 03:39 PM
Anyone who saw how the media marginalized third party candidates like Ross Perot and Harry Browne, or even Republican candidates running against the elite's agenda like Ron Paul will have to admit that what Clive Maund says below is true. Expect Obama to do the elite's bidding (since they put him office with money and media) and also expect our freedoms to be reduced even further thru taxes, regulation, rationing of healthcare, rationing of gasoline, wage and price controls, rent control, exchange controls, a national sales tax, and a full break with posse comitatus.

Good points, all. I would only add Kucinich and Nader, the only two I would refer to as liberals with a straight face, to your list of shunned candidates. Paul had an impressive grassroots organization with widely-distributed internet supporters.

A ray of hope was that I saw, for the first time I believe, the Libertarian Party listed under the "Straight party" section of the ballot here in PA.

Charles Mackay
11-04-08, 04:01 PM
Good points, all. I would only add Kucinich and Nader, the only two I would refer to as liberals with a straight face, to your list of shunned candidates. Paul had an impressive grassroots organization with widely-distributed internet supporters.

A ray of hope was that I saw, for the first time I believe, the Libertarian Party listed under the "Straight party" section of the ballot here in PA.

Good point... add Kucinich and Nader to that list of intentionally marginalized third party candidates.

Slimprofits
11-04-08, 04:38 PM
I'm voting for:

Bob Barr - President Libertarian party - protest vote against the major candidates - I would have liked to have seen Romney (R) vs Warner (D) in the General election.

Zane Starkwolfe - Republican for the US Congress first district in California against the incumbent Democrat Mike Thompson

Jim Pell - Republican for the California State Assembly - the incumbent Democrat is out via term limits and the Democrat running is an incumbent state senator looking to get around term limits by changing to the assembly.

Yes on prop 5 and no on all others here in California.

I am not voting for Ming Chin for the State Supreme Court, but there is also no opposition.

orion
11-04-08, 04:43 PM
Charles I also enjoyed your post about the two party system. I think the problem is professional politicians. They have it down to a science where one side scares you pro / con about an issue, then rakes in the support dollars (guns, abortion, social security, etc). Also watch how they find the spot to run (Hillary is given a "dedoso" / the election finger" from Moynahan and walla becomes a NY senator, Jeb Bush shows up in Florida and becomes the governor (he did do a good job but I would say his bacon is fried after his brother). Hopefully we'll get a splintering of parties as we find the one size fits all doesn't work (just like TV went to so many channels with cable).

mikedev10
11-04-08, 05:02 PM
no ron paul and bar pissed him off. baldwin for me!

neverwin
11-04-08, 05:19 PM
Obama


Cynicism towards government is the cornerstone of the conservative party. The embezzlement, cronyism, war-profiteering, lobbying, bank handouts, income inequality, incompetence, corporate pandering and environmental destruction have all been carried out in the name of conservatives "proving" that government can't and won't work. What a strategy where sabotage and failure justifies the criminal acts of tax dollar siphoning by those who are responsible for the sabotage and failure itself. Death to the "free" market.

labasta
11-04-08, 05:26 PM
The sentiment that electing a half-black man "would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country" is why, if Bush isn't the very last white man elected, he will be one of the last. It will be seen to be "reactionary" and regressive to elect a white man President - the argument will be that only a "person of color" can really understand the growing non-white population's needs and present the US in the proper light to foreign nations. And since 90% of the world's population is non-white and (largely) resentful of whites, we can expect them to always want a non-white as President. This isn't a one-time thing.

Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites. For example, after 200 years of white male Secretaries of State, we have not had a white man in that position since Warren Christopher in 1996. Since then we've had the first white woman Secretary, the first black male Secretary, and now the first black female Secretary. It is possible that Obama will choose a white male in order to try to persuade people that he is not a leftist extremist, but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.


I had never thought of that. Very insightful post. Thanks.

Jeff
11-04-08, 06:12 PM
Obama.

Hailing unregulated free markets as ideal, and government as the problem has been blown to hell by the multi-trillion dollar bailout. Once the businesses came begging and got their billions and AIG was socialized at its request, you can no longer rail against welfare for poor people or socialized medicine. This action has been an outright blatant bailout of people making many millions of dollars by manipulating markets.

As Eric has pointed out, he and I made our money by working hard to create products and jobs that meant something, not playing Keno on Wall Street. Nobody has the moral authority to complain about some immigrant kid getting a free education, or wasting money giving poor kids breakfast after this huge diversion of taxpayer money to the already extremely wealthy.

Higher taxes will disincentivize hedge fund managers to work hard? Give me a break.

I want to see two things from an Obama administration; a new WPA (infrastrucure, clean energy, chopping up McMansions into affordable housing) and a new Manhattan Project (alternative energy). Say we put half a trillion in each. Think we'd get anywhere? Beats the hell out of paying for rapacious bonuses on Wall Street and sending trillions overseas for oil.

Just to avoid the Socialist label here, I've started many companies, created thousands of jobs and paid millions in taxes by my mid thirties. And I'm a Democrat, and I vote.

I have no sympathy for the Ron Paul voters and non-voters who just seem to wish everything was the way they want it. It's called Democracy. et used to it.

Mn_Mark
11-04-08, 09:14 PM
Nobody has the moral authority to complain about some immigrant kid getting a free education, or wasting money giving poor kids breakfast after this huge diversion of taxpayer money to the already extremely wealthy.

Wrong. I have the moral authority to complain about that. I opposed the bailout. I oppose all government intervention in the normal adjustments of the free market. I favor enough regulation to protect people's property rights and to prohibit fraud. But it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that this crash is the result of too little government. This massive problem was made possible by government intervention.

Remember too that the bailout bill was passed mainly by Democrats. The Republicans, in fact, defeated it the first time it came up. That is not to defend the Republicans in the administration who've done the bailing out, but a Democratic adminstration would have done exactly the same thing. The problem is the Keynesian worldview that central government planning and intervention can prevent bad things from happening or make them less bad. And the Democrats and the Republicans are both largely Keynesians. At least Bush is.

<QUOTE>
Just to avoid the Socialist label here, I've started many companies, created thousands of jobs and paid millions in taxes by my mid thirtgies.</QUOTE>
It's great that you've started companies and created jobs and paid taxes. But that doesn't mean you're not a socialist. No one said socialists don't pay taxes.

ThePythonicCow
11-04-08, 09:21 PM
And the Democrats and the Republicans are both largely Keynesians. At least Bush is.
In 1971, Richard Nixon uttered the famous phrase "We are all Keynesians Now. "

PHS
11-05-08, 12:14 AM
If President Bush was still wondering what his legacy will be in the eyes of the American public...tonight's elections should make it clear. However, my impression of leaders, in many fields, is we tend to look at our careers with rose-colored glasses...so maybe not.

I also think that Obama will try to lead from the center more than people (from both sides) seem to believe. I'm glad that he will win and I hope the country gives him a chance.

Raz
11-05-08, 12:19 AM
I have no sympathy for the Ron Paul voters and non-voters who just seem to wish everything was the way they want it. It's called Democracy. et used to it.

And I have less than zero sympathy for arrogant asses such as yourself.
The reason I voted for Chuck Baldwin was because he represented both my economic views and the moral strictures under which I have chosen to live my life. I suppose you voted for Obama for the same reasons. If so, then my next statement will most likely be lost on anyone such as yourself.
Mr. Obama has taken every opportunity throughout his political career to sanction and subsidize the mass-murder of the most innocent and helpless Americans. Procured abortion is not enough for him so he voted at every opportunity to support the "right" of open infanticide.

So you made a lot of money and provided a lot of jobs - and that is suppose to convey upon you the right to belittle others who don't vote the way you think they should? You make me want to puke.

DemonD
11-05-08, 01:24 AM
I voted for Obama.

I actually gave a fair shake to all the candidates. Baldwin and Barr are both to the right of W. Yes that's right - they are more socially conservative than bush. No thanks.

Nader and McKinney are not qualified and their policies would also be ruinous on many levels.

When you look at it, Obama and McCain aren't too far off, but Obama's platforms are more socially libertarian and his economic policies make more sense than all the candidates. While I cheer the fact that we have elected a non-white male, it had no bearing on my vote. I do feel pride in my country that at least for one election, the extreme racism of the past has been mostly discarded.

bpr
11-05-08, 02:49 AM
While I cheer the fact that we have elected a non-white male, it had no bearing on my vote. I do feel pride in my country that at least for one election, the extreme racism of the past has been mostly discarded.

I concur. I have to admit that I am quite moved by the emotion shown by minorities, who have largely held our leaders in disdain for decades, rightly so. Obama makes the myth real for tens of millions of disenfranchised Americans. Every kid hears the words, "You can grow up to be president," but if you're not a white male it must sound hollow once you learn more about history.

His background — single mother, mixed race, strong family, multiple homelands — can only be a good thing for America.

Imagine all the single black mothers out there who can now tell their sons, truthfully, that they can one day be elected to be President of the United States.

All of this is just in addition to the fact that he was the best candidate for the job at the end of the day.

Disclosure: If the ballot was different I'd have voted white man with views I support (Kucinich) first; or white female personally connected to my family (Clinton) second. Obama is more than adequate as a third pick, and in the long haul may lead us best. Godspeed.

P.S. Did you see McCain's concession speech? It was classic McCain, circa 2000. The man showed his true colors for the first time in months. A landmark speech by a great American servant. His humility made me appreciate Obama's win even more, and renewed an old respect I had for McCain. While I may disagree with him, he is a man of mettle. And he should've won in 2000.

Shakespear
11-05-08, 05:05 AM
Not sure what Obama will do but my hope is that it will be a lot better than what Bush has done. At least I think the message he will be sending are more along the lines "Lets talk even if we disagree" instead of "Will bomb you since we disagree".

hellstan
11-05-08, 05:27 AM
Not being American, but still feeling the outrage of Florida / Supreme Court / Banana President 2000, I would proudly vote for Barack Obama. Seen from
Europe, I can guarantee the world envy you for having elected such a man.

hellstan
11-05-08, 05:35 AM
No options for those of us who are not voting for Socialist1 or Socialist2?

Nathan, please, not that kind of rhetoric. Please open a good dictionary or encyclopędia and do learn some word's meaning. ;)

*T*
11-06-08, 07:34 AM
Nathan, please, not that kind of rhetoric. Please open a good dictionary or encyclopędia and do learn some word's meaning. ;)

Hellstan, as I'm sure you know, 'socialist' and 'liberal' have completely different meanings to USicans vs. those of us in the rest of the world. I have had this discussion before and it is an exercise in futility :(

hellstan
11-06-08, 07:43 AM
Hellstan, as I'm sure you know, 'socialist' and 'liberal' have completely different meanings to USicans vs. those of us in the rest of the world. I have had this discussion before and it is an exercise in futility :(

Oh yes, sure, so, let me catch up a bit.

Mmh, last time I checked, the USicans of my entourage
don't use the "socialist" that way, but only the normal way.
Let me rephrase your answer, if you allow me :
"Hellstan, as I'm sure you know, 'socialist' and 'liberal' have completely different meanings to right wing and extreme-right wing USicans vs. those of us in the rest of the world."

For those, we have a nickname : "newts". Cute, isn't it. :D