US Presidential Elections 3

[Gorth]

Start of old thread

End of old thread

The votes have been cast and the American people has spoken.

[Volourn]

"By the way, it's nice that the racist United States can join the color-blind Europeans. We've got a black American president just like the black French president, the black Prime Minister of the Unite Kingdom, and the black Chancellor in Germany."

 

Oh, SNAP!

 

I also like how all of asudden the world thinks the US is 'smart' only because they voted the way they wnated them too. The arrogance of the rest of the world. The rest of the world are the TRUE bigots.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Volourn

[Meshugger]

That's not socialism. That's propaganda. Neat montage, but silly as an argument for socialism.

 

It was a joke. A haha thing. A slight pun for those that are seing socialism everywhere.

 

By the way, it's nice that the racist United States can join the color-blind Europeans. We've got a black American president just like the black French president, the black Prime Minister of the Unite Kingdom, and the black Chancellor in Germany.

 

Why of course you can compare Obama presidency and it's symbolic nature considering of the history of the black people in the united states to Europe. I mean, a continent that didn't even have a black community until the 1970's(and barely now for that matter), when the first batch of caribeans moved here for the job oppurtunities? Of course that is completely sound and reasonable. Fair.and.square.

 

Or maybe we should drop the whole 'socialism' charade that you all are chasing and start pondering about how the issues will be dealt under the Obama administration? Do they have a possibility of success? What should be prioritized and why? What are the short and long term goals?

[Volourn]

"Why of course you can compare Obama presidency and it's symbolic nature considering of the history of the black people in the united states to Europe. I mean, a continent that didn't even have a black community until the 1970's(and barely now for that matter), when the first batch of caribeans moved here for the job oppurtunities? Of course that is completely sound and reasonable. Fair.and.square."

 

Considering the stuff that Europe pulled in Afrika; they owe Afrikans quite a bit including voting one as rulers of their countries. They also should have an Indian be a ruler too considering the crap pulled on them when they first came to NA. If it wasn't for Europeans the US wouldn't have had slavery/racial issues in the first place. Thankfully, my Amerikan friends are cleaning the European mess up.

[Meshugger]

"By the way, it's nice that the racist United States can join the color-blind Europeans. We've got a black American president just like the black French president, the black Prime Minister of the Unite Kingdom, and the black Chancellor in Germany."

 

Oh, SNAP!

 

I also like how all of asudden the world thinks the US is 'smart' only because they voted the way they wnated them too. The arrogance of the rest of the world. The rest of the world are the TRUE bigots.

 

YOU KNOW THE WORLD? PLEASE SHARE ME YOUR INFINITE WISDOM FROM OUR COLLECTED CONSIOUSNESS!

 

'Want' and 'smart' is the wrong word here.

'Not an a**hole' and 'simply decent' are. Do you honestly think that Ron Paul, Romney, Kucinich, Nader or even Hillary would've gathered any different reactions?

[Meshugger]

Considering the stuff that Europe pulled in Afrika; they owe Afrikans quite a bit including voting one as rulers of their countries. They also should have an Indian be a ruler too considering the crap pulled on them when they first came to NA. If it wasn't for Europeans the US wouldn't have had slavery/racial issues in the first place. Thankfully, my Amerikan friends are cleaning the European mess up.

 

By the same logic, you can start by paying up reperations for every slave in north america. But that is not even the point here. Aristes (i think) was comparing apples to oranges, and that's all that there's to it.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Meshugger

[Aristes]

If you meant it as a bit of levity, then I'll take it as such, Meshugger. It was cute anyhow.

 

As for the socialism thing, I'm not one of the folks pushing the socialism argument. I think it's a losing argument since it is technically untrue.

 

However, the non-white populations of some European countries are not entirely small. Black Englishmen? Maybe not. Indian Englishmen? I saw quite a few while I was there.

 

The point isn't to draw an equivalency between Europe and the United States in terms of race relations. The point is to a few holes in what I perceive as our European friends' tendency to see Americans as inherently more racist than themselves. I don't believe this is true. I believe racism, with the attendant habit of seizing on visible differences between people, as a human rather than cultural dilemma. Some cultures handle it better, but bigotry exists/has existed in every culture.

 

Once again, taking it the way you meant it, I really did like the montage.

[Meshugger]

The point isn't to draw an equivalency between Europe and the United States in terms of race relations. The point is to a few holes in what I perceive as our European friends' tendency to see Americans as inherently more racist than themselves. I don't believe this is true. I believe racism, with the attendant habit of seizing on visible differences between people, as a human rather than cultural dilemma. Some cultures handle it better, but bigotry exists/has existed in every culture.

 

Once again, taking it the way you meant it, I really did like the montage.

 

I misread in a slight point of rage. My appologies.

 

And you're right about racism in general, it manifests itself differently in different cultures.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The point isn't to draw an equivalency between Europe and the United States in terms of race relations. The point is to a few holes in what I perceive as our European friends' tendency to see Americans as inherently more racist than themselves. I don't believe this is true. I believe racism, with the attendant habit of seizing on visible differences between people, as a human rather than cultural dilemma. Some cultures handle it better, but bigotry exists/has existed in every culture.

And it exists quite prominently in many European cultures today. Any European who disbelieves this is living in a stultifying state of denial.

 

[Pidesco]

I don't think most Europeans with half a brain, are of the opinion that Europe is some haven for healthy multiculturalism.

 

Also, try not to lump the whole of Europe into one bag of xenophobia. The Portuguese are certainly more racist than the Swedes, for example.

 

Anyway, every culture is filled with xenophobia, even if it manifests itself differently from culture to culture.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The election of Obama offers a tremendous opportunity for us in Europe (and elsewhere) to raise and confront our own issues of racism - that's a great American gift to the world, potentially at least. Has anyone on this thread said that Americans are more racist than Europeans? All the talk in Britain the last few days, in the papers and on TV at least, suggests people think the reverse - we have a lot of work to do before an ethnic minority Prime Minister is elected.

[Guard Dog]

Trying to change the conversational tack here. Obama will take office at same time as the 111th Congress. What will define the first two years of his Presidency will be his relationship with them. While it is true his party has total control the leadershio he will be facing is prickly, and all to convinced of their own importance. To make matters worse they will go into this believing he owes them something (all of them are superdelegates). They will certainly give him what he wants, but you had better believe they expect him to give them what they want. What I will be most interested to see is the first veto battle. How soon will it come? Over what? Unless Obama is a total fool he should keep 1994 in his mind. His life will become significantly harder if one or both houses changes hands in 2010.

 

Of course that is less likely because the Republican party is in ruins. They are descending into infighting between two of the three main factions. Without a clear leader in the opposition Obama can be as left as he wants to be without serious reprecussions. But he has to guard against going too far. America did not change it's ideological bent just because he won the election. It would behove him to remember that if slightly less than 2 million votes had gone against him in FL, NC, VA, OH, and CO (yes it was that close) history would have turned out different. If he goes extreme left it may cost him a second term but it will certainly cost the dems the House of Representatives. He has to think long term. Congress will not, they have only two years to make their case to their home districts for reelection. Therein may be his first conflict. I still predict that the very first thing the 111th Congress does will be to vote itself a pay raise.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If he goes extreme left it may cost him a second term but it will certainly cost the dems the House of Representatives.

What constitutes going 'extreme left' in the current US context? I mean, what are the policy areas and decisions he'll be making in the near future that will indicate whether he's viewed as leftist or moderate. Is it purely taxation and expenditure on public services? The big thing everyone's talking about is Iraq and Afghanistan but I don't see those as particularly left/right issues.

[Guard Dog]

If he goes extreme left it may cost him a second term but it will certainly cost the dems the House of Representatives.

What constitutes going 'extreme left' in the current US context? I mean, what are the policy areas and decisions he'll be making in the near future that will indicate whether he's viewed as leftist or moderate. Is it purely taxation and expenditure on public services? The big thing everyone's talking about is Iraq and Afghanistan but I don't see those as particularly left/right issues.

 

Tax increases greater than what the average American deems as fair (a specious standard to be sure but I can't be clearer than that), gun control, attempts to limit free speech (the "fairness" doctrine), rapid and large scale military cuts (this may sound innocuous but it has a lot of bad trickle down effects). Excessive government spending (there are plenty in the opposition who will be waiting to make an issue of this). Ham fisted attempts at nationalization of business (like Clinton did in 1993). The American people wanted change but if you give it to them too much too fast they will dig in their heels and yell "Stop".

 

If he did pull out of Iraq in rapid and dramatic fasion and the country collapses he would be finished politically. He knows that. That is why nothing will change in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know what he said on the campaign trail but no one is ever obligated to make good on a campaign promise.

 

Plus I will get a HUGE "I told you so" right here on this board.

[Wrath of Dagon]

In general it's the extension of governmental control in every sphere of our lives. A couple of examples: Card check - doing away with secret vote for union representation elections and instead replacing it with a signed card, thus making voter intimidation possible. This passed the House last year but was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. The Fairness doctrine - requiring balanced viewpoints to be expressed on the radio, which makes right wing talk radio no longer commercially viable since its audience will tune out as soon as a liberal comes on. The left claims they're for democracy, free speech, and the constitution, but their deeds prove otherwise.

[Aristes]

Has anyone on this thread said that Americans are more racist than Europeans?

 

I actually find this statement quite irritating. However, rather than view it as intellectually dishonest, I will explain that this thread is two pages long and so does not have a lot of anything in it. In the previous two threads that led up to the current discussion, there was plenty of talk of racism. Since I can only surmise that folks who speak out against racism are doing so from what they deem a stronger moral position, then I thought it was perfectly legitimage to respond. Furthermore, there have been prominent Europeans who have spoke out about American racism over the years. Yes, I think that many Europeans have assumed, because of our history, that America is a cesspool of racism.

 

I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that America has an ugly history in these matters, but it is no different than human history in that regard.

 

On the other hand, I appreciate the comment about how England looks at the issue. Like I said in the previous thread, I didn't vote for Obama, but I still celebrate the accomplishment. It really is about damned time.

 

Now, Obama, go out and prove that I'm wrong and be the best damned President of all time! Go out there and make our country safer and stronger and the crow I'll eat will be the best meal I've ever had. It will be fit for a king, but cooked by a president.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Since I can only surmise that folks who speak out against racism are doing so from what they deem a stronger moral position,

This is a key misunderstanding. This thread and its previous versions are about the US presidential election, so there is discussion of US racism. The fact that we don't qualify every statement with "but of course there is racism in Europe too" is not because we believe there isn't racism in Europe, but because that's not the issue under discussion. I appreciate that acknowledging our own imperfections helps keep the debate on a higher level and reduce irritation in American participants who might otherwise feel their country is being attacked in a one-sided and unreasonable fashion.

[Hurlshort]

My Republican governator is asking to raise the sales tax to nearly 10%. I'm pretty sure the whole democrats = more taxes idea is just an illusion. At this point no matter who our leadership is, we can expect to pay more taxes in the next 4-8 years.

[Trenitay]

Right now, as a nation, we can't afford to not pay higher taxes. We are trillions of dollars in debt and we cant just keep borrowing money. If you dont like it, too bad. Move somewhere else.

[Aristes]

Raising taxes in a recession is simply something we cannot afford. It would be much better to run deficit spending, within limits, until the economy is back in the black and then cut spending.

[Kelverin]

My Republican governator is asking to raise the sales tax to nearly 10%. I'm pretty sure the whole democrats = more taxes idea is just an illusion.

The illusion is our governors a republican.

[Humodour]

It's a tough dilemma. You need to raise taxes to solve the debt problem, but you need to cut taxes because you're in a recession.

 

I think Obama's 95% plan is actually one of the best (not perfect) solutions.

 

In other news, Fox News (of all people) tears Sarah Palin apart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

[Guard Dog]

Right now, as a nation, we can't afford to not pay higher taxes. We are trillions of dollars in debt and we cant just keep borrowing money. If you dont like it, too bad. Move somewhere else.

 

Look at this example. You live in Washington I believe. Before it was gobbled up in mergers AT&T Wireless had it's headquarters in Redmond. Beginning in 2001 and escalating to 2005 Washington state 1)Removed a number of property tax exemptions for business who bought (as opposed to rent) their office spaces 2) Increased State regulatory tax on businesses operating in WA (aka "the Corporate Income Tax") 3) Increased state income tax. Doing business in WA became expensive enough that the company moved it's headquarters to San Antonio TX. Now, many employees were offered jobs in TX if they were willing to move. If they were not they were laid off. So, because of increased taxes WA lost the revenue it made off AT&T Wireless' business, the income and sales taxes paid by the workers who moved (permanently) and the ones who were laid off (at least temporarily). Do you really think that is a good outcome of raising taxes?

 

The one area Obama is absolutely certain to hit, and hit very hard, is Capital Gains Tax. IMHOP this is nothing more than sanctioned robbery. Follow me on this. I am employed, I earn a salary that Uncle Sam takes 25-28% of every two weeks. Suppose I took some of that money(that I have been taxed on once) and bought a stock with it. And the stock does so well that I sell after a short time and make some money on it. That money is considered a capital gain and I'm taxed on it again. Under Clinton it was a flat 20% rate. Bush reduced it to 15% for business, 5% for individuals. Obama has already promised to allow it to return to 20% when the Tax Reconciliation Act sunsets in 2010. Then he has intimated he will raise it more. Securities investing is risky. If a stock buyer assumes the risk it's because they believe the return will be worth the potential for loss. If the government is then taking away a third of more of their returns they will be disinclined to invest. Without investments business do not have the capital to operate. You see where this leads?

 

One of my biggest problems with Obama is that he actually believes the US has a zero-sum economy. I'm finding that mindset is common in bureaucrats who have never held a real job (Obama has not). Heavy taxation presumes that if money is taken from one group that earned it and given to another that did not then the two balance out. So many times in US history (most notably the late 70's) we have applied that model and it has always led to disaster. The US has market based economy and a tax plan that punishes and discourages investment only stifles growth. Market economies are never....ever...ever static. If it is not growing you can bet it's contracting.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Pop]

Do not fret, conservatives. It could be far worse. We could have a dragon as president. Say what you will about Obama, he does not breathe fire. And he has 3 attacks per combat round, maximum.

 

Which isn't to say he isn't an inherently magical creature.

[Humodour]

According to the GOP leaders, McCain was too moderate, and he lost because he wasn't conservative enough.

 

Anybody else see a problem with that idea?