US Presidential Elections

[Rostere]

I don't now where you got that info from, but as hurlshot said, the UN as we know it was formed after WWII. It's predecessor collapsed since germany and the soviet union was kicked out when the great war started, and the US wasn't even a member to begin with. The UN was later formed in order to keep a somewhat status quo between the big players after the war. For those with a permanent seat in the security counsil, it is more of a joke, as they don't need the UN in order to achieve their respective interests.

 

For all the other small countries in the world, it is the only forum where they can have their voices heard. Otherwise, they would be even more pushed around by the big players than before in their game of 'risk'.

 

I got that info from here. This meeting is also of some significance (note which countries were at the meeting which formulated the mission of the UN - and how similar it is in spirit to the Atlantic Charter). You are absolutely right that what we today call the UN was not officially formed until after WW2 (or at least not before Germany's defeat), but an alliance existed and the plans were laid out much earlier for the purpose of uniting as many countries as possible against the Axis and establishing a hegemony of power after WW2.

 

It is not just a coincidence that the founding members of the UN were simply the signatories of the Atlantic Charter. Note also how all of the countries of the Axis were left out of this alliance for a considerable length of time after WW2. In fact, the term "the United Nations" was actually synonymous with the Allies during the war. The UN was from the beginning virtually the same as the Allies, only that they re- established their organization after WW2, perhaps in order to gain credibility for having authority also over the Axis powers.

 

Oh and FYI I would have liked to vote for Obama (if I had lived in the US) if it hadn't been for his protectionist tendencies

[Walsingham]

My God, you're right. How can someone as inexperienced as Sarah Palin ever hope to ascend to the rank once held by Dan Quayle?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm aghast. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has backed Obama for president:

 

Writing in an article in the Parliamentary Monitor magazine, Mr Brown said: "In the electrifying US presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times.

 

"To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counselling, and help families facing repossession."

 

Mr Brown does not mention Mr Obama's opponent, the Republican candidate John McCain, at all in the article.

 

His clear show of support for Mr Obama has sparked fierce debate among American bloggers.

 

I mean, if this turns out to be true (the Telegraph is no fan of Brown, and not above twisting his words out of context). Of course most people in the UK want Obama to win, but it's appalling that the Prime Minister would jeopardise good relations with a possible McCain administration with a silly stunt like this. He does not have public support for this. Brown is a pathetic and deeply unpopular prime minister - does he think this will win him votes?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Attention everyone.

 

 

The elections are over.

 

Obama just won.

Edited September 9, 2008 by WILL THE ALMIGHTY

[Walsingham]

Attention everyone.

 

 

The elections are over.

 

Obama just won.

 

LOL

 

For one second there I thought it was for real.

[Meshugger]

Attention everyone.

 

 

The elections are over.

 

Obama just won.

 

i have to emphazise this again:

 

ELECTION OVER

[Hildegard]

McCain will win hands down.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Does McCain have a personal Rick Roll?

 

No.

 

Therefore Obama wins.

[Meshugger]

Hoho, look at what Cindy McCain does as a hobby:

 

You gotta see it to believe it.

 

And oh, they have a son named 'Jack' in the naval academy. His future job was set in stone from the moment he was born.

 

"President...JACK McCAIN"

Edited September 12, 2008 by Meshugger

[thepixiesrock]

That's pretty cool.

[Hildegard]

Well aside that domestic economy, energy, foreign politics, experience, values, etc are going to be factors in this election, it's foolish not to think that age, gender and color of skin are going to be as much as an important factor as who's gonna be elected.

[random n00b]

Are you implying that racism is still prevalent enough in the American general public for that to have a significant impact on a Presidential election?

 

Nice.

Edited September 14, 2008 by random n00b

[Hurlshort]

Are you implying that racism is still prevalent enough in the American general public for that to have a significant impact on a Presidential election?

 

Nice.

 

Yes, racism still exists. So does sexism, so it might be a wash in this election.

 

It's tough to say whether it will make a difference because most racists don't really advertise. They'll look for some other reason to vote against Obama and use that. But their real motive will be bigotry. I'm not saying everyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist, far from it, but the percentage is probably higher than a few yahoos who wear pointy white hats. I'd hazard a guess at 5% of people that vote against Obama are doing so for racist intentions (mind you, not all those go to McCain) but it could be much higher than that.

[Meshugger]

Here's a good explanation on recent happenings on the ongoing election climate.

[Pop]

Are you implying that racism is still prevalent enough in the American general public for that to have a significant impact on a Presidential election?

 

Nice.

Of course it is. This isn't a post-racial country. Weren't you around for Jeremiah Wright? People were scared by the idea that Obama might have been "blacker" than he looks and acts. If Obama had done anything but disown Wright he wouldn't have the nomination. And he's got an unusually difficult time shoring up support amongst working class whites, even when he's actually softer on the social issues they care about than Clinton was. ****, McCain's fictitious "illegitimate black child" may just have lost him a good deal of votes in South Carolina in 2000, in any case far more than it should have. This election is going to be close enough that racist sentiment could certainly be a factor.

 

Besides, more people will tell you that McCain "looks Presidential" than they would Obama. In a country that elected George Bush because he was the kind of guy you could drink beer with, it's really not unthinkable at all.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Pop

[~Di]

Are you implying that racism is still prevalent enough in the American general public for that to have a significant impact on a Presidential election?

 

Nice.

Of course it is. This isn't a post-racial country. Weren't you around for Jeremiah Wright? People were scared by the idea that Obama might have been "blacker" than he looks and acts. If Obama had done anything but disown Wright he wouldn't have the nomination. And he's got an unusually difficult time shoring up support amongst working class whites, even when he's actually softer on the social issues they care about than Clinton was.

 

Actually, the Rev. Wright controversy centered more around the fact that Obama called a man who has repeatedly said racist, hateful, anti-American statements "the most influential person" in his life. That made more than a few folks take a step back. When Obama then turned around and denounced what Wright had said, then stated that he personally had never heard him say those things, that just made Obama look like either a liar or a fool who spent 10 years in a congregation with the "most influential" person in his life, and had no clue what the man preached from the pulpit. This "being blacker than he looks" stuff is ludicrous.

 

Will race be an issue in this election? Sure, because somewhere around 90% of black voters have said they are voting for Obama, and a full 70-80% of them (can't recall the precise percentages; saw them on a newscast) admit that they are voting for him purely because he is black. So yes, in a racially mixed election race is going to be a factor. And if Obama loses, I suspect there will be much gnashing of teeth and allegations that he lost because too many white folks wouldn't vote for a black man without considering the possibility that too many folks of all color wouldn't vote for an inexperienced, ultra-liberal candidate of any color. Of course if he wins, there will be grousing from the other side that he only won because all the blacks voted for him without considering the possibility that there were simply too many people of all colors wouldn't vote for an aging Bush-buddy with a gun-toting, ultra-conservative veep on the ticket.

 

One thing every election has. The blame game. It's the only thing policians are really good at.

[kirottu]

Hoho, look at what Cindy McCain does as a hobby:

 

You gotta see it to believe it.

 

That

[random n00b]

Besides, more people will tell you that McCain "looks Presidential" than they would Obama. In a country that elected George Bush because he was the kind of guy you could drink beer with, it's really not unthinkable at all.

Well, personally, I would try and get hold of something a bit more tangible than personal anecdotes and impressions before calling my fellow countrymen racists so broadly, but that's just me. Mind you, I'm not saying Americans aren't racist, as I don't live there and lack the most basic elements to form an opinion. But it's not pretty to do that kind of allegations without some sort of backing.

 

That, and all my alarms go off when somebody starts throwing around the word "people" without making clear who these "people" are or where they got their facts from. Li'l personality quirk o' mine.

 

 

Will race be an issue in this election? Sure, because somewhere around 90% of black voters have said they are voting for Obama, and a full 70-80% of them (can't recall the precise percentages; saw them on a newscast) admit that they are voting for him purely because he is black. So yes, in a racially mixed election race is going to be a factor. And if Obama loses, I suspect there will be much gnashing of teeth and allegations that he lost because too many white folks wouldn't vote for a black man without considering the possibility that too many folks of all color wouldn't vote for an inexperienced, ultra-liberal candidate of any color. Of course if he wins, there will be grousing from the other side that he only won because all the blacks voted for him without considering the possibility that there were simply too many people of all colors wouldn't vote for an aging Bush-buddy with a gun-toting, ultra-conservative veep on the ticket.

It would be great if you could find the source for those figures, too. Anyway, that's not quite the kind of racism I had in mind when I made my comment, but I guess "reverse" racism is still racism.

 

 

One thing every election has. The blame game. It's the only thing policians are really good at.

I think you give them too much credit.

[Pop]

Will race be an issue in this election? Sure, because somewhere around 90% of black voters have said they are voting for Obama, and a full 70-80% of them (can't recall the precise percentages; saw them on a newscast) admit that they are voting for him purely because he is black. So yes, in a racially mixed election race is going to be a factor.

You'd have a point here if 70-80 percent of black voters didn't already strongly trend democratic in the first place. But they do trend that way, so you don't have a point here.

 

inexperienced, ultra-liberal candidate

I see you've picked up the term "liberal" as a pejorative. You don't seem like the Fox News type, where did you cultivate that charm?

 

Regardless, even if there was some sort of "reverse racism" going on (what a silly term that is, as if favoring one's heritage were an abomination. I wonder why ~Di's ilk doesn't boycott St. Patty's day, or Black History Month), there's a reason black people are called "minority voters". It is because they are literally in a minority, in some states more than others. So picking up a larger percentage of them might not be particularly beneficial. Actual racism is a factor because a smaller percentage of white voters exhibiting it will handily cancel any advantage getting even 100% of the black vote will get you, especially in places like West Virginia or Ohio, or any of the Western states, or ****in' Iowa. These are the states Obama has trouble with, coincidentally or no.

 

Well, personally, I would try and get hold of something a bit more tangible than personal anecdotes and impressions before calling my fellow countrymen racists so broadly, but that's just me.

I've got lots of history to judge on. Brown v. Board (that's the start of the Civil Rights Movement, more or less) was just 54 years ago. There are voters who remember it. Strom Thurmond only recently passed, having been celebrated by southern political heavyweights since shamed. I'm not as quick as others to declare that, since that generation is dying, racism is dying too. Institutionally, racism is still latent, particularly in an education system that relies on property taxes. It was just a few years ago that Katrina hit, and the response to that was completely inexplicable and inexcusable. The war on drugs has incarcerated thousands upon thousands of non-violent black offenders and created countless violent ones, while slapping white offenders on the wrist, mostly due to different preferences in drugs (technical difference - crystal vs. powder), and income differences. I could pull you figures on all of this, but I think you're smart enough to see the lay of the land as to the existence of racism. Now whether or not it's going to influence the election is the question. I just assume it will. I did mention the push polling in North Carolina against McCain in '00, alleging that McCain had fathered a bastard black child. The day those calls went out he had a 5 point lead, and he lost the state soon after. As with ~Di's 70-80% figure up there, there might be a more plausible explanation, but negative campaigning really seems to work, and in that case it contained racist propaganda. The racist factor will be a marginal effect, hopefully, but the margins will really matter this November.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Pop

[Hildegard]

Are you implying that racism is still prevalent enough in the American general public for that to have a significant impact on a Presidential election?

 

Nice.

 

I'm saying race, gender and age are still influential factors that determine peoples biases on large scale even in the God given freedom loving and all the other bull**** US.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Hildegard

[Guard Dog]

I see you've picked up the term "liberal" as a pejorative. You don't seem like the Fox News type, where did you cultivate that charm?

 

I'd hardly call the use of the term "liberal" a pejorative when describing Obama. In the new American political definition of the word liberal (advocating strict government control over free enterprise and eschew individual and states rights in favor of federal mandate) Obama fits it to a T.

 

Ironically if you ever actually looked up the word liberal and liberalism in a dictionary you would find this: "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties" I could not imagine a definition more contrary to everything Barack Obama believes in. So I guess really he's not a liberal. He's a democrat. According to Websters those are two very different things.

 

especially in places like West Virginia or Ohio, or any of the Western states, or ****in' Iowa. These are the states Obama has trouble with, coincidentally or no.

 

You would have a point here if West Virginia, Ohio, or any Western States had not already voted Republican in the last three presidential elections. But they did so I guess you don't. Those states you mentioned (except Ohio which Clinton won by a slim margin in '96) have rejected the last three male white democrats and now if Obama is in trouble there it must be because he's black. Maybe the voters in those states just don't like democrats? Nah that can't be it, they must be racists.

 

Racism has been trotted out to blame for so many facts that are unpleasant that is is starting to lose its meaning. The charge of racism loses all gravity when it is applied to a political opponent who has done nothing but advocate or vote for a different viewpoint. And that is a shame because there are still racists out there in the national spotlight. For example Philadelphia Enquirer columnist Fatimah Ali wrote a piece promising an all out race war if Obama loses. I guess if the outcome of an election is enough to make someone take up arms against their countrymen it was inevitable any way. That would be the ultimate form of racisim wouldn't it?

 

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20...eorge_Bush.html

[Walsingham]

I just find it sad that race is an issue. Racism won't be dead just because you ahve a black President. Racism will be dead when a President can be any colour, and people take it as no more significant than what breakfast cereal he prefers.

[Guard Dog]

I just find it sad that race is an issue. Racism won't be dead just because you ahve a black President. Racism will be dead when a President can be any colour, and people take it as no more significant than what breakfast cereal he prefers.

Racisim will never be dead so long as someone can make political hay out of it. I really don't think Obamas race is an issue in 2008 America. But there are political factions mainly on the left who try to make it an issue especially if he loses. I'm not voting for him but it has nothing to do with his race, it's his politics. If JC Watts would run for president you had better believe I'd vote for him.

[Walsingham]

Who is JC Watts?

[Guard Dog]

Who is JC Watts?

 

Former Congressman from Oklahoma, running for governer in 2010. Brilliant man and a Reoublican with a strong Libertarian streak. I met him several times when I worked for the FL Republican party.

 

 

Oh, and he's black too but nobody cared about that.