quote:The American ideal has been to get past that anti___ism so that all kinds of different folks can live peaceably together. That the behavior of some individuals fails to meet that ideal does not mean that the American ideal is worthless or false.
See, I think the American ideal is to talk like that, but then take whatever power we can to do whatever we want, in a pinch.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Without commenting on the larger political issues, one cannot chose their own gender or race. However, one can choose (or not choose) to be Mormon."
A rather odd way of looking at choice. I assure you that I would rather have gender reassignment surgery AND plastic surgery with skin recoloring than give up some of my political stances, which are lightly held compared to my core beliefs.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: How does lending money to one's own campaign work? I mean, is it really a loan or is that in name only? Any new fundraising at this point is going to be spent on campaigning and advertising, not paying herself back. I have a hard time imagining continued fundraising drives after the nomination is decided so that "her campaign" can pay the $5 million back - so isn't it more a matter of spending one's own money than an actual loan?
--Enigmatic
I heard on cable news today that Clinton's campaign had already paid back the loan.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre: For now and the foreseeable future, surgery cannot change your race OR your sex (which is a better word than gender actually). It can only change the appearance of both, which is entirely different.
Conversely, simply because you do not *wish* to change your beliefs does not actually mean that you *cannot* choose to.
In other words, there is a biological basis for sex and race (albeit a rather fuzzy one for race). As far as I know, there is no biological basis for being unable to change one's mind about a religion or politics short of some mental disorder.
_____________ I'll emphasize that I have yet to comment on any larger political issues related to this topic, I'm still merely elaborating on what I would consider "the difference."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody gives genetic tests before deciding whether to like or dislike you because of your appearance. And surgery is crude compared to the genetic engineering body-restructuring that will become available.
What I've experienced&learned and the beliefs based on that experience&learning are the more vital parts of the me-that-is-me than mere physical appearance.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll say it. After what happened in West Virginia, I do not want a whiff of an organized Republican campaign to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee. I don't mind, at all, if H. Clinton is the nominee in a fair campaign, but I don't want to hear about a clever coordinated campaign, hatched by republicans, to corrupt the Democratic pool.
posted
aspectre: I'm not entirely sure how you're relating what you're saying to what I said.
Whether a particular trait like race is "vital" or "likable" is entirely different from the concept of choice that I'm bringing up.
For now, I cannot choose whether I have Parkinson's or not, yet this is not a "vital" part of my identity. I choose to be an atheist yet that probably is a "vital" part of my identity.
I have also not advocated giving genetic tests before deciding to like or dislike someone, nor have I advocated using appearance as a factor either. In short, I think you're assuming a lot about what I'm saying Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Race Exist? It's an academic dialogue, of course, but I lean toward the "no" side, and not just for the sake of this particular argument.
Gender is obviously a bit trickier. It's always seemed a little ironic to refer to women as a "minority" since there are reportedly more adult women than men.
I'm not impressed, so far, with the response of the conservative media to Romney's suspension. Romney basically framed it that those who continue to try and weaken McCain are giving comfort to our enemies. Who's a godless traitor now?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I'll say it. After what happened in West Virginia, I do not want the whiff of an organized Republican campaign to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee. I don't mind, at all, if H. Clinton is the nominee in a fair campaign, but I don't want to hear about a coordinated campaign for republicans to corrupt the Democratic pool.
That's something I'm worried about for the open primaries that remain. Independents will vote for Obama, but if Republicans vote for Clinton to try and screw with things, it means trouble. I don't know how much effect they could have in poisoning the well, but with how close things are, a small bump might be all that's needed.
katharina -
Regarding youth turnout. Youth voters are voting in the highest numbers ever since 18 year olds were even legally given the vote. It still might not be an uber large group, but in this election they've proven that you can't ignore them, and that they are difference makers. They don't vote like senior citizens, but they are coming out in drastically increased numbers.
McCain will now grab onto the mantle of leader while Huckabee hopes to consolidate all of Romney's support. McCain will largely ignore Huckabee and run as the candidate, and it's probbaly a good move. I don't think he'll specifically beat up on Hillary or Obama, he'll just attack the Democratic message. You might even hear him do what Bush did a few months back and praise Clinton to try and get people to vote for her. It's going to be interesting to see what he specifically attacks though. He's going to stay away from Iraq a bit I think, it's still a tenuous topic. He can't do immigration since they agree. I guess that really leaves the economy, and that'll be interesting since the majority of Americans trust Democrats with the economy over Republicans.
He might just sit back and fundraise for a month. And he certainly needs the cash.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have some Washington state polling numbers. They confuse me, because apparently Washington does a Caucus AND a primary. Most people won't caucus, but 88% said they will vote in the primary.
Otherwise Obama - 53%, Clinton - 40% and Undecided - 7%
I think the rest of February will be very kind to Obama.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka: I've read it and its interesting. I'd still lean toward the "yes" side. I'll point out that both the pro and con side in your link actually agree that there are a fair number of biological traits that *can* be used to support our notions of race. The main disagreement is whether those traits are actually *significant* enough to give any actual utility in keeping the terms around. Secondly, both use a non-trivial amount of time discussing whether the terms cause harm rather than good, which is a different issue I think too.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think we'll see much republican crossover to vote for Clinton as a "spoiler." Even if they do think they have a better chance of beating her than Obama, I doubt many would go for the risk that she could then win the general election. I DO think Obama is more electable than Clinton in the general, but it's nowhere near enough of a difference to make McCain's victory a sure thing if he's up against Clinton.
I think if republicans are going to vote on the democratic side, more of them would go with Obama for the "Anybody but Clinton" factor, honestly.
posted
I kind of agree with Enigmatic. It's too risky to give her the nomination.
CNN has an updated delegate of Clinton 840 and Obama 831 not including superdelegates. Don't know how complete this delegate count is.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Watch Jon Stewart's reaction to Romney's speech. He pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about Romney's dumbass speech.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that said David Letterman. That really threw me off.
I think what he means is, in the past California primaries have been so far after the nominee is already chosen that people just aren't used to voting in primaries. And they aren't really as used to the whole "people dropping out" part since there is usually just one guy by the time thier vote usually comes around.
So they are out of practice with how it all works. And they got burned.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Interesting article. I can't believe there hasn't been a serious discussion on US Congressional term limits in this country lately. Given the performance of the Congress of late, I'd think now is the perfect time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Watch Jon Stewart's reaction to Romney's speech.
If you are talking about this , I never thought that Mitt Romney was a douche bag. He always struck as one of those business guys, the kind who think that we should flood school administration with MBAs, guys who know how "to get things done," but not a douche bag. I will say that I was struck immediately and profoundly by Tagg Romney, and I said as much here. Just so you know that I'm equal opportunity, I think that Alexander Giannoulias, Democratic Treasurer for the State of Illinois and Todd Stroger, Board President of the Cook County Commissioners, are also similarly blessed.
No, that's not the part I was referring to, it's the part that came right before it.
If you go to Comedycentral.com it's the video that plays right away. If you go to Jon's spot on the site specifically, it's under "Mitt Drops Out." I would post a transcript of what he said, but, you really have to hear it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I saw the Mitt Romney is a douche bag video first, and I was thinking, "yeah, I don't care for the guy much either, but isn't this a bit over the top?" Then I saw the previous segment - the main video up on comedycentral.com - and, well, I think douchebaggery is the least of what ails Romney. His "suspension" speech is really a piece of work.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "Without commenting on the larger political issues, one cannot chose their own gender or race. However, one can choose (or not choose) to be Mormon."
A rather odd way of looking at choice. I assure you that I would rather have gender reassignment surgery AND plastic surgery with skin recoloring than give up some of my political stances, which are lightly held compared to my core beliefs.
If this surgery is a supposed consequence of how those political beliefs are working for you... then I'd say you're right on the same page with Bush on this one. You won't change no matter what, no matter how bad it turns out, no matter what you have to become.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Hopefully a poll for Virginia will come out soon. I can't find one later than last October.
Took longer than I thought, but I have two VA polls.
Barack Obama 59%, Hillary Clinton 37%, Other 2%, Undecided 3% (+/- 5)
Barack Obama 52%, Hillary Clinton 37%, Other 1%, Undecided 10% (+/- 4)
Those are both from yesterday.
I don't see a single poll that has Hillary leading in any of the states that will vote over the next two weeks. If they were WTA, Obama would get a substantial push from it, either way, I think he'll win all or most of them and take a lead over her in the delegate race.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got recruited to canvas for Obama in rich liberal land on Saturday. This should be fun. *loves tracting*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a huge amount of excitement here in PA about Obama. The group I joined has had over 100 emails go out in the last fews days about upcoming events. Everyone involved is extremely excited to help out and are volunteering their time and services. It's inspiring.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see a single poll that has Hillary leading in any of the states that will vote over the next two weeks.
Texas votes on March 4th, and I'd imagine this is the most "key" state that remains with its 228 delegates. With 35% of their population being latino, and with how Clinton has been mopping up the latino vote, I'm worried as an Obama supporter.
Any poll data for Texas, Lyrhawn?
Edit: My quick googling reveals some old polls, with Clinton stomping Obama by double digits. I fear that whatever gains Obama makes will be wiped out come March 4th.
When you act like a douchebag, expect to be called on it.
And Mitt has a nice track record of being a douchebag in politics.
look, I understand some people like his political positions, even like them a lot. But, the way he treated Massachusetts citizens was downright NASTY. Not the political positions he brought to his administration, but the contempt he demonstrated (and spoke of) for the entire state, while using the governorship of that state to launch a national campaign. It bespeaks a person who really IS a douchebag. At best.
Look, dude. We elected you. You want to use that as a springboard for a national campaign? Fine. Others have done it. But at least respect the fact that we gave you the chance! Without us you are not a candidate for president! show some respect!
I hope he chokes on a fishbone.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: [B]ut the contempt he demonstrated (and spoke of) for the entire state, while using the governorship of that state to launch a national campaign. It bespeaks a person who really IS a douchebag. At best. ... I hope he chokes on a fishbone.
I think you're way out of line, Paul.
I agree his jokes about MA were demeaning. I felt betrayed that he didn't show more pride for MA than simply cheering the Sox.
But Romney is a good man, a kind person, and a dedicated citizen. While you might disagree with his stances, even his tactics, when it comes down to being a good person who acts with charity and kindness on a personal level, I would take Mitt over most people any day.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But Romney is a good man, a kind person, and a dedicated citizen."
See, I completely disagree.
A good man, a kind person, and a dedicated citizen at least governs the state he's elected to govern, rather then skipping town at every opportunity, and while he is out of town, does not completely disrespect the people he is currently supposed to be governing.
"when it comes down to being a good person who acts with charity and kindness on a personal level, I would take Mitt over most people any day."
Maybe so, but my girlfriend, who actually knew Mitt (and is WAY more towards the center then I am), has an even lower opinion of him then I do.
Maybe when he's not in his role as governor of massachusetts he can act with kindness and charity, but as a politician? No. He doesn't. The man is a complete a-hole. And I'm sorry if you think thats out of line, but it is completely mindboggling to me how people can think he is a good man after how he treated the citizens of massachusetts.
The evidence, at least the public evidence, is to the contrary.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what capacity did your girlfriend know him?
I've seen him with his grandkids. I've watched him care for people who are in trouble.
He's a good guy.
He made politically expedient decisions I didn't agree with. But in person I've found him to be warm and considerate.
But besides all that, Hatrack doesn't seem like the right place to throw around personal insults of someone, even if they are a public figure.
<edit>Maybe rather than being rhetorical I should just state the obvious. I see Mitt at church from time to time. Although I've never talked to him directly, my observation of his interactions have always been positive. Furthermore, I've interacted quite frequently with one of his sons, and found him to be a good person, and to be highly complimentary of his father. Based on that evidence, I have a high opinion of Romney as a person (apart from his political decisions or stances).</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
my girlfriend worked in the statehouse the entire time he was governor. So, again, his public persona. Worked closely with is staff a few times and thus interacted with him numerous times.
"He's a good guy."
No he's not. if he were, he could not have acted as he did while governor. The statement, and his actions as governor, are mutually exclusive.
"He made politically expedient decisions I didn't agree with."
Yes. Politially expedient decisions that, and this is the important part, only a scumbag could have made.
"But besides all that, Hatrack doesn't seem like the right place to throw around personal insults of someone, even if they are a public figure."
I don't know. It seems fairly common. Especially for public figures. Check out some of whats been said about the Clinton family, for example.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can certainly accept that Romney might have more positive interactions with his children and with his churchmembers.
But its not compelling evidence, for me, that he's a good person. To me, a good person is incapable of doing what he did. He might be a good FATHER, and he might be a good NEIGHBOR, but as a total package?
I'm going to put a lot more weight on his treatment of 6 million people then on his treatment of 6 or 600.
He calculated that it would benefit him to treat 6 million people like dirt, and actively pursued that policy for personal gain, over a period of 4 years.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "He's a good guy."
No he's not. if he were, he could not have acted as he did while governor. The statement, and his actions as governor, are mutually exclusive.
You know what, garbage. This is exactly the sort of absurd logic that results in the "if you're not with us, you're against us." He can do lousy things and still be a good guy. I'm not saying he's perfect, just that he's kind and polite and warm and considerate. And not a douchebag. Or someone worthy of wishing choking upon.
quote:"He made politically expedient decisions I didn't agree with."
Yes. Politially expedient decisions that, and this is the important part, only a scumbag could have made.
I completely disagree.
quote:"But besides all that, Hatrack doesn't seem like the right place to throw around personal insults of someone, even if they are a public figure."
I don't know. It seems fairly common. Especially for public figures. Check out some of whats been said about the Clinton family, for example.
I wasn't here when Clinton was in office. In the two or so years I have been here, including Hillary's primary run, I haven't seen anything approaching the amount of vitriol you're spewing. Like I said, based on my experience at Hatrack, I think you're way out of line.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Wow. I saw the Mitt Romney is a douche bag video first, and I was thinking, "yeah, I don't care for the guy much either, but isn't this a bit over the top?" Then I saw the previous segment - the main video up on comedycentral.com - and, well, I think douchebaggery is the least of what ails Romney. His "suspension" speech is really a piece of work.
Yeah, I just watched that segment and I'd have to totally agree. If there was ever a speech that caused someone to deserve the title of "douche bag" on national (international?) tv, that would be it. Its like he took the outline of of a gracious concession speech and took the complete opposite approach, trying to take pot shots at as many targets as possible on the way out.
Good riddance, although on the bright side it does give me a small amount of hope and cheer that the people through democracy actually made the right choice on this one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
errrm...Wasn't it starLisa who wished worse upon eg Israeli PrimeMinister Sharon for failing to have a sufficiently genocidal attitude toward Palestinians?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see a single poll that has Hillary leading in any of the states that will vote over the next two weeks.
Texas votes on March 4th, and I'd imagine this is the most "key" state that remains with its 228 delegates. With 35% of their population being latino, and with how Clinton has been mopping up the latino vote, I'm worried as an Obama supporter.
Any poll data for Texas, Lyrhawn?
Edit: My quick googling reveals some old polls, with Clinton stomping Obama by double digits. I fear that whatever gains Obama makes will be wiped out come March 4th.
I don't know how old your polls are, but I have one before and one after John Edwards that are fairly recent if you want. I thought I already posted it, but I guess I didn't.
January 10th - Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 28%, John Edwards 14%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Mike Gravel 1%, Undecided 10% January 31st - Hillary Clinton 48%, Barack Obama 38%, Mike Gravel 3%, Undecided 12%
Near as I can tell, it's wide open. She lost a tiny bit of ground, but Obama swept up a lot of Edwards' supporters. The undecideds could make it a Hillary coup or help Obama split the difference. But this is a soft poll, Clinton is polling ahead in only one February vote, and that's a lead in Wisconsin. Other than that she's behind by several points in every other state. Obama is pouring money into Texas and Ohio a month ahead of those primaries, and the bump he'll get from February will help too.
On Wisconsin:
February 7th - Hillary Clinton 50%, Barack Obama 41%, someone else 1%, undecided 8%
That's a pretty tight race, and the gap could be closed. Especially if more people start talking like this. The gist is that Clinton is in a statistical dead heat with McCain, whereas Obama would start off with a pretty good lead over him, the big difference being men, and Obama actually does better with white voters than Clinton does, and about the same with women. She also has much higher unfavorables than he does. She's not unelectable by any means, but it'd be a fight, whereas Obama would come in poised to take advantage of Democrats' natural strengths this year.
There's always the hope that for the good of the party the Superdelegates will glom onto Obama after February and put him over the top, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think this goes all the way to the convention, it'll go to the end of March maybe, but I could be wrong. The longer they fight, the longer McCain can settle into his role and spend his timing whipping up his base. Obama needs a knockout punch.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You know what, garbage. This is exactly the sort of absurd logic that results in the "if you're not with us, you're against us.""
No... that logis is based on "opposition to a policy I support makes you my enemy."
The logic I'm expressing is that a "good guy," doesn't treat 6 million people like they're less then dirt. Entirely different things.
"I completely disagree."
really? You think a non-scumbag can make a conscious decision to pursue a policy of treating his constituents like dirt in order to further his own personal ambitions, while having needed those same constituents in order to have any shot at achieving those personal ambitions? Even worse, you think thats a decision a "good guy" can make?
Someone being a "good guy," to me means someone who doesn't actively think up ways, and then use those ways, of treating people like dirt. A "good guy," does not use people to their detriment in order to further his own needs. A "good guy" might make mistakes in which he hurts people, but he'll apologize for it, recognize that what he did was wrong. A "good guy," is a good guy in all walks of his life, not just his private life. Public life matters, too. And, often, as in the case when you are responsible for 6 million people in your public life, your public life matters in character determination more then your private life.
A "good guy," is all around good. Not just good when its convienent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
