Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on August 26, 2008, 07:26:55 pm
-
If you ARE a US citizen, please don't vote here - vote in the thread for US citizens (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,56058.0.html). ;)
-
I'm really curious how this will work out... though I expect I know.
-
Is there any way off knowing the results off the voting in the thread for U.S. citizens?
-
could you add like a 'I'm in the us and am therefor ineligible to vote' option so I can see the results of the poll.
-
There's a "view results" option you know. :)
But yeah, I can see it getting annoying to click it all the time.
-
I literally do not have a view results link
-
Hmmm. Poll must be on the "Make everyone vote first" option.
-
id like to see the results of this poll, but since this is the internet i wont trust the results
-
I've never heard of three of those people.
-
id like to see the results of this poll, but since this is the internet i wont trust the results
Safer than Diebold though. :p
-
i wont vote unless i know who voted for or what i voted for. i dont like biased election turntable without knowing what to expect.
-
I voted for Nader, I hate everyone!
I wonder if anyone'll get the reference...
-
I almost posted the exact same thing. :D
-
Why is there no neutral option? :mad:
-
The last option is to see the poll without corrupting it. What would a neutral option accomplish that the last option wouldn't?
-
Why is there no neutral option? :mad:
You cast a neutral opinion in the same way as you do in the real elections. You do nothing. And no one gives a damn about your opinion as a result. :p
-
I need to abstain. Picking between **** and garbage is hardly ideal.
-
can i vote Schwarzenegger? :rolleyes:
i am unsure what these representatives really want, not what the publicists say or written through a speech which means nothing.
-
I fekked up and voted in t'other one first.. Any chance of removing my one John Mccain vote (and comment) :confused:
Yet again, ............
[said with less ghusto this time round]
Go Go John McCain force!!
More wars for the win........ :sigh:
-
You cast a neutral opinion in the same way as you do in the real elections. You do nothing. And no one gives a damn about your opinion as a result. :p
The problem here, kara, is that I can't vote in the US, yet I want to see the non-US results, but there's no option for those who wish to remain neutral but cannot vo...ahh forget it...
-
Just vote on something and subrtract one from the resulyts.. :cool:
-
i wouldn't vote on any of them until i know their objective for the country, look at bush and then Reagan. Bush sent your country to war, became a joke to the states and a laughing stock to the rest of the world. where as Reagan actually did some good in your country, if anyone of these political characters turns out to be a Bush then im not voting them, if the other turns out to be Reagan like i will vote that one. and their is bound to be a party in that list somewhere something like that god awful BNP party or a modern day nazi party.
-
Just vote on something and subrtract one from the resulyts.. :cool:
Except that would corrupt the poll if everyone did that.
The last option is to see the poll without corrupting it. What would a neutral option accomplish that the last option wouldn't?
-
i wouldn't vote on any of them until i know their objective for the country, look at bush and then Reagan. Bush sent your country to war, became a joke to the states and a laughing stock to the rest of the world. where as Reagan actually did some good in your country, if anyone of these political characters turns out to be a Bush then im not voting them, if the other turns out to be Reagan like i will vote that one. and their is bound to be a party in that list somewhere something like that god awful BNP party or a modern day nazi party.
By the time you're ready to vote on this poll, the election would've been over already. :p
-
i wouldn't vote on any of them until i know their objective for the country, look at bush and then Reagan. Bush sent your country to war, became a joke to the states and a laughing stock to the rest of the world. where as Reagan actually did some good in your country, if anyone of these political characters turns out to be a Bush then im not voting them, if the other turns out to be Reagan like i will vote that one. and their is bound to be a party in that list somewhere something like that god awful BNP party or a modern day nazi party.
Reagan started run-away military spending. I'd rather have another Ike any day of the week.
-
I'd like another Teddy Roosevelt.
But really I'd like someone not in AIPAC's pocket. Alas, my dream may never come true :-(
-
how about another idiot like Richard Nixon?
-
Nixon was probably the most skilled pure politician this country has ever seen, and he did more to open up China to the West than anyone before him. He was certainly liked enough to win re-election in a landslide.
Unfortunately for him, he was also rampantly paranoid. :p
-
:eek2:.... :lol:. i am unsure on what further to say of nixon... :D. no vote for me, as no one will actually give me an answer to what these political opponents actually want instead of the scripted list.
-
If you're too lazy to go out and do some research yourself, we're not going to spoon-feed you. Be a big boy. :p
-
lol.
this is research, how can i research something without asking people what they really expect of their de facto president?
-
can i vote Schwarzenegger? :rolleyes:
i am unsure what these representatives really want, not what the publicists say or written through a speech which means nothing.
I second that motion! Governator FTW!
-
After viewing the results of both polls, I've come to the conclusion that HLP has an American population which is, unusually, surprisingly near the liberal end of the political spectrum.
Interesting.
-
After viewing the results of both polls, I've come to the conclusion that HLP has an American population which is, unusually, surprisingly near the liberal end of the political spectrum.
Interesting.
There is the off-chance that some non-US residents voted. Though, you're probably right.
-
After viewing the results of both polls, I've come to the conclusion that HLP has an American population which is, unusually, surprisingly near the liberal end of the political spectrum.
Interesting.
You were surprised? I can name only a few genuine conservative Americans on the board.
-
It also could be the fact that liberal in American politics is very different from liberal in European politics.
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he would be a democrat.
-
if lincoln was alive today hed start a coup because fo the sorry state of the us of a.
-
In Honest Abe were alive today, I would capture him and make millions. :rolleyes:
-
There are also quite a lot of non-US HLP members though.
I thought Nixon was power-hungry.
-
I would have liked to have voted for Hillary, but I suspect I'd vote for Obama. Truth be told, I've barely been following the yank race after the interminable months of the democrat nomination race. For the moment, I've got a state election coming up that concerns me much more.
-
Hillary Clinton's speech seems pretty clear-cut, but my local newspaper says that she stopped short of telling diehard fans to fully support Obama.
My sister supports Obama, partly because he looks a bit like her Junior College form teacher.
-
im so glad young liberals tend to not vote
-
Don't get too glad; we're gonna turn out more than usual this time.
-
Still be interesting to see if Obama can rally the support from the people who almost never vote. The 25ish year olds who are disillusioned with the political process and don't feel that they should care about it at all. Lots of people my age stare blankly when you talk politics (in the appropriate setting and everything!). For the record I've voted in every Canadian election I was able to.
-
I'm too young to vote, but I like to be as neutral as possible.
-
Interesting. The US only poll has a more even split between Obama and McCain. The rest of world poll has almost no McCain support. Interesting!
-
And I'll bet if Nader was better known he'd probably be beating Obama too.
-
Interesting. The US only poll has a more even split between Obama and McCain. The rest of world poll has almost no McCain support. Interesting!
I lived in Europe for a few years, well before I'd really ever even gotten into politics. Basically all I got were tidbits of the pop-culture opinions on things. Towards the end of my stay, the whole '04 election Bush vs Kerry was going on. Strange thing was, there were all these crazy stories I read about complete chaos in the U.S. TONS of people getting arrested for simply saying things bad about President Bush... riots all over the place, and every news article I read about the elections had these stunningly glowing reviews about Kerry and his wife and why most people wanted him to be elected. I remember thinking "Wow Kerry must really be the real candidate of choice if they're having this hard a time staying objective about it." It wasn't even so much 'bad' coverage of Bush, it was all that you heard was about Kerry. And that he was totally awesome.
Came back to the States after the whole election was over and was blown away by the coverage of the U.S. that was displayed in the ol' EU. I was like "Wow, none of the stuff they were saying was happening is going on over here." I thought I was going to come home to some kind of crazy war-torn dictatorship because the Democrat candidate didn't get elected. Needless to say, in my personal experience, the EU media displayed a huuuuuuuuge unapologetic Left Wing bias. Much more so than it is here in the States.
Again, just my personal experience.
Not sure how it is now over there, but if Obama is getting the same kind of coverage Kerry did 4 years ago, its no wonder why our EU brethren are voting heavily for the Big O.
-
Love the way you're treating the whole of the EU as if they are all the same based on your experiences in one country by the way.
-
Love the way you're treating the whole of the EU as if they are all the same based on your experiences in one country by the way.
Wasn't just one country... by the way.
-
Unless it was all of them, the point still stands. :p
-
I want to see Obama as President, but I predict that McCain will be the winner.
-
Does anyone know of any websites that evaluate a candidates leading ability rather than their take on issues?
-
Does anyone know of any websites that evaluate a candidates leading ability rather than their take on issues?
There's a website that has a comprehensive evaluation of all of the candidates' takes on the issues!?
-
Not sure how it is now over there, but if Obama is getting the same kind of coverage Kerry did 4 years ago, its no wonder why our EU brethren are voting heavily for the Big O.
I'd gladly vote for Big O (http://www.paradigm-city.com/images/ep01/bigo2.jpg) over either of the actual candidates. :p
-
Obama's holding back to let McCain handle Hurricane Gustav. Hopefully he does it better than the Bush Administration. :blah:
-
Obama's holding back to let McCain handle Hurricane Gustav. Hopefully he does it better than the Bush Administration. :blah:
McCain can't "handle" anything about Gustav any more than Obama can, since both are members of the Senate, not the executive branch. They can both use the storm in the PR sense, but it's people like the president, the governor, and FEMA who actually handle the realities of the situation. In any case, New Orleans itself came off relatively undamaged, so the point is moot.
-
I'd gladly vote for Big O (http://www.paradigm-city.com/images/ep01/bigo2.jpg) over either of the actual candidates. :p
:lol:
Image broken by the way. But I got the joke. I would totally vote for a giant killer robot.
-
Suppose that's what I get for not taking a "no hotlinking images" warning seriously. This (http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj1/PD_Top_Gun/ASMB%20Icons/Current%20Icons/Big%20O/bo_bigo.gif) will do nicely as a replacement.
-
Interesting. The US only poll has a more even split between Obama and McCain. The rest of world poll has almost no McCain support. Interesting!
I lived in Europe for a few years, well before I'd really ever even gotten into politics. Basically all I got were tidbits of the pop-culture opinions on things. Towards the end of my stay, the whole '04 election Bush vs Kerry was going on. Strange thing was, there were all these crazy stories I read about complete chaos in the U.S. TONS of people getting arrested for simply saying things bad about President Bush... riots all over the place, and every news article I read about the elections had these stunningly glowing reviews about Kerry and his wife and why most people wanted him to be elected. I remember thinking "Wow Kerry must really be the real candidate of choice if they're having this hard a time staying objective about it." It wasn't even so much 'bad' coverage of Bush, it was all that you heard was about Kerry. And that he was totally awesome.
Came back to the States after the whole election was over and was blown away by the coverage of the U.S. that was displayed in the ol' EU. I was like "Wow, none of the stuff they were saying was happening is going on over here." I thought I was going to come home to some kind of crazy war-torn dictatorship because the Democrat candidate didn't get elected. Needless to say, in my personal experience, the EU media displayed a huuuuuuuuge unapologetic Left Wing bias. Much more so than it is here in the States.
Again, just my personal experience.
Not sure how it is now over there, but if Obama is getting the same kind of coverage Kerry did 4 years ago, its no wonder why our EU brethren are voting heavily for the Big O.
Interesting but to be honest I think you may be over exaggerating.
Which countries? Which media outlets were responsible for the reporting? I realize it was years ago but you must have a general idea.
I do read allot of news from Europe...particularly BBC News (and I watch BBC World News). The news is definitely different but I was reading all throughout the election period and while it did seem that BBC seemed to talk a bit more about Kerry...the reporting was still fairly even and no ridiculous stories about wide scale arrests or rioting. Nothing beyond whatever CBC, CTV, ABC, CNN, and CBS were willing to do. I like to cover the range although I realize that I've covered mostly just Canada and the UK (although BBC purports to be a worldwide service) and then again most of that news is coming from Reuters or AP.
-
Blam! We ARE the world service :p i hope Mccain wins. Because i like his chips and he will give rise to nod.
-
They've uncovered some disturbing things about Sarah Palin's family background. I hope it won't impede McCain's campaign or anything.
I'm deliberately neutral about elections because I always like to give everyone an equal chance. As much as Obama has a lot going for him, I'd like to actually see if McCain can do it better than Bush.
-
compare the way the candidates talk about things. obama sounds like some good for nothing rapper whos pointing his finger at everything assigning blame. mccain on the other hand actually sounds like he understands issues and has at least half a brain (which is alot for a president).
obama is a socialist so it makes sense that socialist countries would find him more appealing and tilt their media in that direction as if to say hey americans, pick this canidate or we will hate you more! so i get where these results are coming from. also i dont like hippies. by the way im really drunk.
-
Or perhaps the rest of the world see your country with clearer eyes than you do. Maybe you're like the drunk who thinks that he's really cool dancing on the edge of the table. Everyone else can see that it will end badly. :p
-
my point still stands, obama is a trash talking kid who hasnt a clue what hes getting into.
-
McCain definitely has the experience, I'll give him that. :)
-
Obama's holding back to let McCain handle Hurricane Gustav. Hopefully he does it better than the Bush Administration. :blah:
McCain can't "handle" anything about Gustav any more than Obama can, since both are members of the Senate, not the executive branch. They can both use the storm in the PR sense, but it's people like the president, the governor, and FEMA who actually handle the realities of the situation. In any case, New Orleans itself came off relatively undamaged, so the point is moot.
same cant be said for Cuba, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic at least 30 people dead and a good deal of damage done.
that sarah plain has given her speech, she looks serious about becoming vp to mccain. i just hope this presidency works out, however it would be equally funny if it falls apart and bush somehow finds himself back in control of states again because of circumstances :lol:.
-
that sarah plain has given her speech, she looks serious about becoming vp to mccain. i just hope this presidency works out, however it would be equally funny if it falls apart and bush somehow finds himself back in control of states again because of circumstances :lol:.
Uh...what? I'm not sure that you have a firm grasp on how the American political system works, or maybe I'm just misreading you something fierce. :p
-
just a small joke strange if that was the case :rolleyes:.
as i said elsewhere, i dont pretend to understand the political system no would i want to however i know that someone else would be sworn into office if that was so. like said, i hope this presidency works out if they do become presz and vice presz.
-
It'll be ........umm, *thinks of an appropriate word*............................Interesting, in a years time to look back.
Shibby:yes:
-
compare the way the candidates talk about things. obama sounds like some good for nothing rapper whos pointing his finger at everything assigning blame. mccain on the other hand actually sounds like he understands issues and has at least half a brain (which is alot for a president).
obama is a socialist so it makes sense that socialist countries would find him more appealing and tilt their media in that direction as if to say hey americans, pick this canidate or we will hate you more! so i get where these results are coming from. also i dont like hippies. by the way im really drunk.
my point still stands, obama is a trash talking kid who hasnt a clue what hes getting into.
To be honest I haven't heard any "trash talking" at all... Neither of them sound like they have a clue about what their getting into.
Its true that more left leaning countries are probably going to be more sympathetic to a left leaning party like the Democrats although I would hardly label the Democrats, Obama, or European countries in general as Socialist. The Democrats are center to slightly right leaning while the Republicans are far right leaning if you compare to Canada, Germany, France, and probably the UK. The US does not have a left or far left leaning socialist party or anything that looks like one.
-
Well, we have all kinds of parties, you just don't hear about them.
-
america's government is a pretty unusual configuration. i can understand why it would be confusing to anyone who hadn't had to take us government, or a political science class (in the usa of course). what we try to do is lump everyone into super massive parties. that doesnt prevent all the hippies and socialists from forming up their lesser parties though, collectively they're called independents, and they seldom win higher positions. on the side of voters i believe most americans are unafiliated with a party and vote based on what the candidates support. its sort of based on an antiquated understanding of politics, before the 2 axis political compass way of looking at politics came into being. so its really unfair to say that all republicans are the same or all democrats are the same. you have conservative dems, libral dittos and vice versa. socialists and small government types on both sides.
the problem with our system is that its really confusing. unless people really do personal research into the candidates its really impossible to make an educated choice. you have biased media that leads to more confusion and lobbyists who tend to tilt their stance on issues. political campaigns theese days usually lack substance. saying whatever toe audience your talking too wants to hear, and then saying something contradictory to the next crowd. but ive listened to speeches on both sides, and i like more of what the republicans have to say than i do about what the democrats say. also it seems to me with how bad bush did that the democrats were pretty much handed the election. and if obama/biden is the best they can come up with then i seriously question if that party is worthy of controlling the white house. pretty much the democrats said what they want to do, and the republicans said how they plan to do what they want to do.
-
...the problem with our system is that its really confusing. unless people really do personal research into the candidates its really impossible to make an educated choice. you have biased media that leads to more confusion and lobbyists who tend to tilt their stance on issues. political campaigns theese days usually lack substance. saying whatever toe audience your talking too wants to hear, and then saying something contradictory to the next crowd....
thank you nuke, it is what i said a few pages back, i asked what the candidates really want before i make a vote, this is actually what i had in mind when i said what i did, however my english failed me.
-
im sure some of this stuff was said somewhere. these debates usually go on for pages with people repeating the same dribble over and over again. i was merely trying to summerize how our system works as well as why it doesnt :D
-
these debates usually go on for pages with people repeating the same dribble over and over again.
Only so many people look at the previous pages.
-
Well, we have all kinds of parties, you just don't hear about them.
Right but none of them have any serious chance of being in power in any way. In Canada there are what amounts to three major parties. The Conservatives which are a bit like the Republicans, the Liberals, which are a bit like the Democrats, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) which are a more socialist left leaning party. The NDP has varied in numbers over the years but at present they have a somewhat significant piece of the pie as well. They have never been in power federally but provincially they do from time to time.
There is a fourth party in the mix called the Bloc Quebecois which is a separatist party that has representation in Quebec only. They also have a significant chunk of the vote but only in Quebec.
In the US there may be other parties...but its basically just Democrats and Republicans. There are no serious wildcard parties that can tip the balance in any one way.
-
these debates usually go on for pages with people repeating the same dribble over and over again.
Only so many people look at the previous pages.
ive read all the pages of all the us election threads. it amuses me to see all the socialists and librals spewing utter nonsence in an effort to change the results of the election.
-
Indeed, Nuke, which is why I'm still neutral. :p
-
Who would you rather have as a president? Biden or Palin?
Because it is fairly likely during the 4/8 years of presidency that McCain will drop dead of a stroke or something and Obama will be shot by some racist guy. Both Obama and McCain would help the country in some way, but I'm leaning toward Obama a bit more.
-
Who would you rather have as a president? Biden or Palin?
Because it is fairly likely during the 4/8 years of presidency that McCain will drop dead of a stroke or something and Obama will be shot by some racist guy. Both Obama and McCain would help the country in some way, but I'm leaning toward Obama a bit more.
McCain's probably healthier at 72 than I am right now at 22, so from where I'm standing, he'd have no problem getting at least four years under his belt. :p
-
It does make you wonder, though: has any side been in power for more than eight years?
-
Republicans for 12: Reagan than Bush Sr.
-
Yeah I voted for Nader, it might help the US to not have a corporate puppet as the exec for a change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7_-H_kSWQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7_-H_kSWQ) :P
or this one's kinda good too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsAKXeyvxzU&feature=user (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsAKXeyvxzU&feature=user)
-
Who would you rather have as a president? Biden or Palin?
Because it is fairly likely during the 4/8 years of presidency that McCain will drop dead of a stroke or something and Obama will be shot by some racist guy. Both Obama and McCain would help the country in some way, but I'm leaning toward Obama a bit more.
i think palin would do the job better, shes been a damn good governor so far. shes a natural leader. its just as likely that mccain get assasinated by a racist black guy for "stompin' out tha brothas", or biden getting assassinated by some feminazi for taking the vp slot away from the ladies. when a presidential candidate picks a vp, they pick someone they know can be president.
-
when a presidential candidate picks a vp, they pick someone they know can be president.
Explain Dan Quayle then. :p
-
when a presidential candidate picks a vp, they pick someone they know can be president.
Explain Dan Quayle then. :p
as with any rule there are always exceptions. palin is a damn good governor, thanks to her our pfds this year will be $3269, completely funding my move to phoenix. plain tacked an extra $1200 to offset energy costs, as alaska buildings are mostly heated by fuel oil and natural gas. with the oil price where it is the state is getting plenty of extra revenue to help offset the costs of heating this frigid icebox.
its ridiculous the restrictions the federal government puts on alaska. we are surrounded by forests, yet we cant do any logging, local lumber prices are very restrictive. all the construction ive been doing has shown me how restricting the costs of such a basic resource can cause. so many buildings here are in complete disrepair because we cant afford the materials for basic maintenance of structures. none of our government buildings have any maintenance plan what so ever.
we produce our own oil but were not allowed to build our own refineries. were not allowed to make our own decisions about drilling in places like anwar for example. its completely unfair that the hippies down south are happy to dictate the future of my current state. there has recently been issues with mining here. they want to shut that down too. though i (and palin said she did) voted against that in the local primary (and it passed) them damn non-alaskan liberals are still trying to circumvent the vote to get their way. its disgusting, that my vote didnt count because someone manipulated the system. thats why i like palin, because shes trying to make something of this state, instead of the run down emergency gas pump that the rest of the usa thinks we are. these are our resources and we should get to use them for the advancement of our state. not that we dont want to participate in trade, just that we should get to have a say in what we choose to develop.
before someone brings up so called global warming, this was one of the coldest summers i can remember. as a result my usual job only paid a 3rd of what it usually would have paid. also this is the main reason for my leaving the state, since all our industries are tied up fighting to remain operational. my job is seasonal and i didn't make enough to stay the winter. i would really like to have a tech job, but there are few to none. maybe if our state is allowed to develop id find a reason to stay, but i cant so im leaving. so id say palin is seeing all the problems with our state and fixing them, imagine what she could do for the rest of the country (too bad shes only running for vp).
-
God help america if she comes into power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD3Yk9RZRF0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD3Yk9RZRF0)
-
Did she just say "nucular" weapons?
Great, just great...
-
This is kind of interesting, except for the word "Illuminati" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teXgZoZrnwQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teXgZoZrnwQ)
-
This is kind of interesting, except for the word "Illuminati" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teXgZoZrnwQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teXgZoZrnwQ)
I see a video of disjointed clips taken well out of context and assembled to paint a great emotional picture but one, if you use an ounce of rational thought, that is entirely manufactured.
In short, more conspiracy bull****.
-
God help america if she comes into power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD3Yk9RZRF0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD3Yk9RZRF0)
I preferred this one (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/61410aa4ff). :p
-
I see a video of disjointed clips taken well out of context and assembled to paint a great emotional picture but one, if you use an ounce of rational thought, that is entirely manufactured.
In short, more conspiracy bull****.
Conspiracy?
All I got out of it is that the US always go to war and they'll always continue to go to war because that's what they do and if you vote for mccain/obama that's exactly what's going to happen and a bunch of kids wherever and other people are gonna get their asses killed as a result. Got Obama talking about attack Iran, or Pakistan, or wherever the hell, how can that be taken out of context?
Or you what something that's NOT out of context? Try this quote:
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion… and you allow him to make war at pleasure… If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,–’I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’"
-Abraham Lincoln
Or here's another one:
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight Eisenhower
And yet the Americans will vote in Obama and McCain in droves to have the same pointless bloodshed again and again. But who cares, they're not americans dying. They're just Iraqis, just Afghanis, does it matter the US bombed the **** out of some Afghan civilians? Or that some Canadian soldiers shot some 3 year old dead (or however old it was). They're not American or Canadian lives, so who cares . . . .hell do they even get much news coverage? And yet there go the Americans, cheering on their future leaders who want perpetuate these conflicts until the end of time at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.
-
And yet the Americans will vote in Obama and McCain in droves to have the same pointless bloodshed again and again. But who cares, they're not americans dying. They're just Iraqis, just Afghanis, does it matter the US bombed the **** out of some Afghan civilians? Or that some Canadian soldiers shot some 3 year old dead (or however old it was). They're not American or Canadian lives, so who cares . . . .hell do they even get much news coverage? And yet there go the Americans, cheering on their future leaders who want perpetuate these conflicts until the end of time at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.
American Presidents cannot unilaterally decide to go to war. That's what Congress is for - which means that if you want to effect a meaningful change in the way foreign policy is being conducted in the United States, you need to change the culture, not the politicians. To say the US is always going to war is a fallacy as well; the emergence of the United States from isolationism only occurred after the 1930s. The preventative war strategy only emerged after 1980.
A foreign policy shift occurring over two decades is hardly a case for "always" and certainly not a case for perpetuation.
I have a quote too: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Where is the outrage over Darfur, Serbia, Rwanda, Somalia, Lebanon?
I'm not a fan of war either nor US foreign policy between the 1985 and 2005, but a little historical perspective is absolutely necessary. That video was crap.
-
American Presidents cannot unilaterally decide to go to war. That's what Congress is for - which means that if you want to effect a meaningful change in the way foreign policy is being conducted in the United States, you need to change the culture, not the politicians. To say the US is always going to war is a fallacy as well; the emergence of the United States from isolationism only occurred after the 1930s. The preventative war strategy only emerged after 1980.
"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)
Note that congress also hasn't formally declared war since World War 2.
The American system is a good one but are the laws of that system actually being followed?
List of conflicts involving the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States)
Considering that half that page isn't even the 20th century I'd say you're a little mistaken on the "isolationist only before 1930". Hell the term "Manifest Destiny" is centuries old, the very idea of which is domination of North America or somesuch thing.
-
"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)
Note that congress also hasn't formally declared war since World War 2.
The American system is a good one but are the laws of that system actually being followed?
Considering Congress has had to authorize American participation in ever conflict it has ever participated in, whether it is the declaring body is irrelevant. Prolonged offensive military action requires the authorization of the legislative body.
List of conflicts involving the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States)
Considering that half that page isn't even the 20th century I'd say you're a little mistaken on the "isolationist only before 1930". Hell the term "Manifest Destiny" is centuries old, the very idea of which is domination of North America or somesuch thing.
This is why world history should be a mandatory subject throughout high school.
The United States pursued isolationist policy right up until World War 2. That does not mean they did not participate in wars - that means any conflict they undertook was purely out of self-interest. The official break with isolationism occurred on December 7, 1941. The practical break with isolationism occurred in 1938 when the US began selectively supplying the soon-to-become Allied powers in Europe.
Manifest destiny refers to an American belief from approximately 1800 to 1900 that the provinces making up Canada would become a part of the United States. That ranged from a military attack on the British territories there during the war of 1812 to political belief post-1867. Isolationism does not have lack of warfare as a prerequisite - it merely means (concerning warfare) that the nation only involves itself in conflicts which are in its own self-interest.
Young people like to believe that the US is and always has been a warmongering state, but the reality is that the conflicts we see today are a result of a very recent change in foreign policy which Bush has himself already begun to reverse.
-
"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927."
Considering Congress has had to authorize American participation in ever conflict it has ever participated in, whether it is the declaring body is irrelevant. Prolonged offensive military action requires the authorization of the legislative body.
Considering that I quoted the Wikipedia which just said that American has participated in 125 military actions NOT authorized by Congress I suggest you read the quotes a little harder.
The United States pursued isolationist policy right up until World War 2. That does not mean they did not participate in wars - that means any conflict they undertook was purely out of self-interest. The official break with isolationism occurred on December 7, 1941. The practical break with isolationism occurred in 1938 when the US began selectively supplying the soon-to-become Allied powers in Europe.
Manifest destiny refers to an American belief from approximately 1800 to 1900 that the provinces making up Canada would become a part of the United States. That ranged from a military attack on the British territories there during the war of 1812 to political belief post-1867. Isolationism does not have lack of warfare as a prerequisite - it merely means (concerning warfare) that the nation only involves itself in conflicts which are in its own self-interest.
So what, America is fighting for other people's interests now? "fighting for Iraqi freedom"? hahahahahaha. Come on. America fought for their own interests back then, they're fighting for their own interests now. Isolationism is a country that doesn't interact with its neighbours, hence, isolates itself. Interacting, through self-serving warfare is NOT isolationism.
Here's another quote from Wikipedia regarding "Isolationism":
"Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism)
So was the invasion of Canada in 1812 a defensive action?
So was Hitler an isolationist because he took pre-emptive action in a war serving Germany's interests? No, of course he wasn't. And neither is the United States.
-
Considering that I quoted the Wikipedia which just said that American has participated in 125 military actions NOT authorized by Congress I suggest you read the quotes a little harder.
Considering that war cannot be conducted without funding from Congress which must be authorized several times a year, I suggest you research how the American system actually works rather than relying on Wikipedia.
So what, America is fighting for other people's interests now? "fighting for Iraqi freedom"? hahahahahaha. Come on. America fought for their own interests back then, they're fighting for their own interests now. Isolationism is a country that doesn't interact with its neighbours, hence, isolates itself. Interacting, through self-serving warfare is NOT isolationism.
Here's another quote from Wikipedia regarding "Isolationism":
"Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism)
So was the invasion of Canada in 1812 a defensive action?
So was Hitler an isolationist because he took pre-emptive action in a war serving Germany's interests? No, of course he wasn't. And neither is the United States.
Isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things, which is once again why relying on Wikipedia for your information without fact checking is a bad thing.
A few other facts:
-Canada wasn't a country in 1812, it was two different British colonies and Britain was at war with the United States.
-The conflict now is purely self-serving, but WW2, the Korean War, and the Gulf War were all breaks with isolationism, as have been the numerous economic programs in place following WW2 set to influence world politics.
-Nazi Germany was never isolationist and never pretended to be.
-
I see a video of disjointed clips taken well out of context and assembled to paint a great emotional picture but one, if you use an ounce of rational thought, that is entirely manufactured.
In short, more conspiracy bull****.
Conspiracy?
All I got out of it is that the US always go to war and they'll always continue to go to war because that's what they do and if you vote for mccain/obama that's exactly what's going to happen and a bunch of kids wherever and other people are gonna get their asses killed as a result. Got Obama talking about attack Iran, or Pakistan, or wherever the hell, how can that be taken out of context?
Or you what something that's NOT out of context? Try this quote:
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion… and you allow him to make war at pleasure… If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,–’I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’"
-Abraham Lincoln
Or here's another one:
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight Eisenhower
And yet the Americans will vote in Obama and McCain in droves to have the same pointless bloodshed again and again. But who cares, they're not americans dying. They're just Iraqis, just Afghanis, does it matter the US bombed the **** out of some Afghan civilians? Or that some Canadian soldiers shot some 3 year old dead (or however old it was). They're not American or Canadian lives, so who cares . . . .hell do they even get much news coverage? And yet there go the Americans, cheering on their future leaders who want perpetuate these conflicts until the end of time at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.
Okay, Angel, before you throw around rampant generalizations, maybe you should do some research and learn that
a) most Americans (a ridiculous proportion) feel that the country is 'on the wrong track', as shown in many polls
b) there is a huge and active antiwar movement in many parts of the country, particularly the Northeast and Northwest, which are generally more liberal.
-
Just need to get those folks to vote...
The biggest problem in modern democracy is people not voting.
-
A few other facts:
-Canada wasn't a country in 1812, it was two different British colonies and Britain was at war with the United States.
Wrong. The US declared war in 1812. You can't be at war and declare war again just for the sake of doing it. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The War of 1812 was an invasion of Lower/Upper Canada by the United States in response to trade sanctions, but altogether, still America was the aggressor.
Considering that war cannot be conducted without funding from Congress which must be authorized several times a year, I suggest you research how the American system actually works rather than relying on Wikipedia.
What does funding have to do with anything? Supply money to the armed forces and sending those troops into conflict are two entirely different things. As I understand it, Congress has two powers. To fund the troops, and to declare war or to authorize military force (ie go to war without a formal declaration)
The Executive has the power to defend the country from attack, and act as the head of the armed forces.
Now take the recent Iraq conflict. According to http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm (http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm), congress did NOT approve the Iraq war. They approved following the mandate set down in the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act, authorizes the president to go to war if the the danger to the US is "clear and imminent". That was not the case. The Iraq army was in shambles, there was no PROOF of WMDs, only hunches and supposition (and lies). And yet America invaded anyway. That was essentially a war without the approval of congress, and a violation of the American constitution as what defines the Executive's powers under the War Powers Act. So that's at least one war, perpetrated by the United States, that was not directly endorsed/authorized by congress.
-The conflict now is purely self-serving, but WW2, the Korean War, and the Gulf War were all breaks with isolationism, as have been the numerous economic programs in place following WW2 set to influence world politics.
America only official entered WW2 when Pearl Harbour was attacked. This by the very nature of the quote I gave you is isolationism in that they're acting in defense of their nation. Likewise, it was Germany and Italy that first declared war on American and then the United States responded in kind.
-
Wrong. The US declared war in 1812. You can't be at war and declare war again just for the sake of doing it. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The War of 1812 was an invasion of Lower/Upper Canada by the United States in response to trade sanctions, but altogether, still America was the aggressor.
Trade sanctions is a funny way of putting the kidnapping and pressganging of US citizens into Royal Navy service, and delibrately attacking an American warship at sea.
-
Wrong. The US declared war in 1812. You can't be at war and declare war again just for the sake of doing it. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The War of 1812 was an invasion of Lower/Upper Canada by the United States in response to trade sanctions, but altogether, still America was the aggressor.
Trade sanctions is a funny way of putting the kidnapping and pressganging of US citizens into Royal Navy service, and delibrately attacking an American warship at sea.
If by kidnapping you mean re-patrioting and if by US citizens you mean Royal Navy deserters then sure. (ie there are two sides to every coin)
-
Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.
-
Just need to get those folks to vote...
The biggest problem in modern democracy is people not voting.
Well, thank goodness I can't vote, because once I become of age in Singapore, I will be forced to do so. :wtf:
-
Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.
Looks at the current leadership.
Not enough of them though. :p
-
True, true. *sigh* Well, if Bush ran for reelection right now, he'd certainly lose. People just didn't catch on quick enough.
-
Angel, there are documented cases of people being kidnapped and pressed into BRN service. If you don't believe me just google it.
-
Wrong. The US declared war in 1812. You can't be at war and declare war again just for the sake of doing it. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The War of 1812 was an invasion of Lower/Upper Canada by the United States in response to trade sanctions, but altogether, still America was the aggressor.
Britain still wasn't recognizing the US as an independent state at that point in history, and as many others have already pointed out, had conducted numerous acts of war against the United States. It went to war out of necessity, not any warmongering desire.
What does funding have to do with anything? Supply money to the armed forces and sending those troops into conflict are two entirely different things. As I understand it, Congress has two powers. To fund the troops, and to declare war or to authorize military force (ie go to war without a formal declaration)
The Executive has the power to defend the country from attack, and act as the head of the armed forces.
Now take the recent Iraq conflict. According to http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm (http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm), congress did NOT approve the Iraq war. They approved following the mandate set down in the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act, authorizes the president to go to war if the the danger to the US is "clear and imminent". That was not the case. The Iraq army was in shambles, there was no PROOF of WMDs, only hunches and supposition (and lies). And yet America invaded anyway. That was essentially a war without the approval of congress, and a violation of the American constitution as what defines the Executive's powers under the War Powers Act. So that's at least one war, perpetrated by the United States, that was not directly endorsed/authorized by congress.
Funding is everything. For a war to be waged, funding must be approved. Had Congress cut off the funding in 2003 there would have been no Iraq war. Yes, the President declared war without the authorization of Congress, but Congressional consent must be given to EVERY war in the form of military funding. No funding, no war. Planes don't fly without fuel, nor do troops fight without food. Thus, had Congress opposed the war and been unwilling to allow the US to fight in it, they could have denied the funding. So like I said, whether or not they explicitly declare war is irrelevant - they gave their approval by their votes.
America only official entered WW2 when Pearl Harbour was attacked. This by the very nature of the quote I gave you is isolationism in that they're acting in defense of their nation. Likewise, it was Germany and Italy that first declared war on American and then the United States responded in kind.
The US broke with isolationist policy after the attack on Pearl Harbour when they entered both the European and Pacific theatres and re-affirmed the Atlantic Charter in January (which explicitly laid out the principle of self-determination). Such goals for post-war interference in the affairs of other states stand in stark contrast with isolationist policy. Roosevelt advocated the explicit breach with that former policy in his address to Congress following Pearl Harbour.
-
Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.
Looks at the current leadership.
Not enough of them though. :p
My thoughts exactly. From what I've learned in the past few days the US has a very good system and the potential to be a truly great nation but the current leadership is basically stifling it. I saw a statistic somewhere, that what, the US was ranked 37th in the world in education? How is that possible? No offense to Americans but a colleague of mine theorizes that the American education system is intentionally ****ty to keep the populace ignorant and easy to control basically.
As for new leadership,
It doesn't help that :
A - presidential debates aren't really debates in the first place, rather they're basically co-interviews
B - more importantly, 3rd party requirements to enter debates are very high such that a 3rd party representative can't even enter the debate. Of course the debates are run/organized by former democrats/republicans.
Furthermore 3rd party candidates are given very little air time, and when they are on television they're dismissed as a waste of time. (ie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEw0qKjP7hk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEw0qKjP7hk) ). ie, this guy says "Ralph Nader, you're not going to become president, what's your deal?"
And what do debates have to do with anything? Well, what's his face . . . Jesse Ventura won the governor position in Minnesota when he was allowed into the debates.
Not sure about the other 3rd party candidates, but Nader has quite a few good ideas "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7_-H_kSWQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7_-H_kSWQ)". Ie, Health Care. The US government doesn't implement some sort of social health care, but the current system is the most expensive in the world both per capita and in general. And it costs the patients a hell of a lot too from what I understand. Those that can actually afford it.
Funding is everything. For a war to be waged, funding must be approved. Had Congress cut off the funding in 2003 there would have been no Iraq war. Yes, the President declared war without the authorization of Congress, but Congressional consent must be given to EVERY war in the form of military funding. No funding, no war. Planes don't fly without fuel, nor do troops fight without food. Thus, had Congress opposed the war and been unwilling to allow the US to fight in it, they could have denied the funding. So like I said, whether or not they explicitly declare war is irrelevant - they gave their approval by their votes.
When exactly is the funding for the military voted upon relative to the invasion of Iraq? If the US army invades, and two weeks later is the periodic voting time what exactly do you think they'll vote? "Let's vote no and screw our troops and the Iraqi people." I'd be curious to know when exactly the vote was, but I couldn't find anything, oh wait, yes I did
Okay, so the invasion of Iraq was roughly
March 20th to May 1st 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq))
Congress approves 79 Billion in April, 2003
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pent-s26.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pent-s26.shtml)
So the American Army invades, routes the Iraqi army in basically a week or two. And then they're left with a country in the ****ter. And THEN congress votes on what to do. Well what do you think they're going to do? Vote NO? Please.
Once the army commits, Congress has to follow suit. There's no choice in the matter. Invade a country, smash the infrastructure, then pull out a week later and leave it in tatters???
The executive, Bush, started a war and Congress had NO CHOICE but to approve it after the fact. Congress as I understand it, is not supposed to follow suit. They're supposed to AUTHORIZE or declare war.
-
You think the massive troop and materiel transportation effort required to intiate the war was funded by what, the standing budget?
-
Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.
Looks at the current leadership.
Not enough of them though. :p
Yes, that definitely makes it okay to generalize everyone. I mean, it's obviously accurate because only 20% of the US population liked Bush enough to vote for him. Why not generalize with statistics like that?
-
You think the massive troop and materiel transportation effort required to intiate the war was funded by what, the standing budget?
How does approving troop movements equate to approving military action?
So what, they approved the movement of troops.
Then they approved the following the mandate under the War Powers Act.
Neither of which is approving a war.
Then the war starts.
And THEN congress approves funding when they really have no choice to do so.
I mean realistically, everyone knew they were going to invade. But under the letter of the law, the President (ie the executive) started a war which he had NO LEGAL RIGHT to do. Or is the american consitution and american law simply some massive gray area to be bent and broken at will for the sake of the situation?
'Everyone has the right to an attorney and due process, unless they're a suspected terrorist in which case we'll deny them that right'
'Everyone has the right to privacy, unless it's for the sake of nation security then we can spy on their asses all we want'
'Under Geneva all prisoners of war have certain rights, but this isn't a war and they're not soldiers so we're going to hook up wires to their balls and confine them without rights in some legal limbo loophole for 5 years'
If the US never had any intention except to go to War, congress should have approved the use of military force, not approved following the mandate under the War Powers Act. Then sure, it would've been a legal war under US law, but they didn't, and it's not. And there's no gray area about that. I'm not sure what the bigger problem is, the fact that the Executive started an illegal war, or the fact that no one gives a damn about it. But hey, throw Clinton in a room with an intern and the whole country is up in arms for months to impeach the bastard.
-
Oh, and btw regarding Congressional Funding.
According to the documents regarding H.R. 108-55.
This is the funding bill or whatever you call it passed April 16, 2008.
Chapter 3 - Department of Defense, Military
"In his supplemental budget request, the President requested
$62,409,500,000 for programs and activities funded through
defense appropriations acts. . . these funds are required at this time in
order to--"
"Reimburse the Department of Defense and other
agencies for costs already incurred as a result of
preparatory activity and other actions associated with
operations in and around Iraq (which has since been
named ``Operation Iraqi Freedom''), as well as a
portion of those costs associated with ongoing military
operations in and around Afghanistan, the global war on
terrorism generally, and related activities, including
the Department of Defense's involvement in homeland
security; and" (emphasis mine)
According to: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_reports&docid=f:hr055.108 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_reports&docid=f:hr055.108)
Incase you missed it, the bill's funding was to REIMBURSE the defense dept in part for PREPARTORY activities re: Iraqi Freedom.
Or in plain english, Congress DID NOT FUND the troop deployment until AFTER it had happened, and until AFTER the war had started. ie the Executive authorized military operations without either the specific funding of Congress, and without "clear and imminent" danger under the War Powers Act. Hence, Illegal war.
End of story.
-
Akalabeth, again, I know you're probably not aware, but the Bush administration supplied false information to Congress, the UN, and the American public in order to get support for the war. And the torture programs were carried out by the Bush administration, quite illegally, without congressional oversight.
The Bush administration has been expert in creating (or at least arguing for) just the kind of gray areas you worry about.
-
Akalabeth, again, I know you're probably not aware, but the Bush administration supplied false information to Congress, the UN, and the American public in order to get support for the war. And the torture programs were carried out by the Bush administration, quite illegally, without congressional oversight.
The Bush administration has been expert in creating (or at least arguing for) just the kind of gray areas you worry about.
Exactly. Bush broke the law, and got away with it. One Congressman brought up terms for impeachment, which were swept under the rug. What's the next Democrat or Republican President going to get away with? When there's a precedence in-place for breaking the law and pursuing illegal invasions of sovereign countries. American laws and the constitutional rights of Americans are being violated, how many people know and how many people care? Come election time they're probably going to vote in another Bush (Obama, McCain, what's the difference really??) . Assuming of course that they even vote, which is not very likely. The voter turnout is what, 30%? Canada's not much better mind you.
-
I suppose in your country the government is entirely trustworthy and reliable, and politicians never have hidden agendas.
-
I suppose in your country the government is entirely trustworthy and reliable, and politicians never have hidden agendas.
I'm not saying my country is better than yours.
I'm saying your country can be better than it is, if you want it to be. It can be what it was intended to be, not what it's eroded into being.
America does need change, but I seriously doubt either McCain or Obama will bring it. When is America going to wake up and realize they have more than two options? Like Ralph Nader said
"The lesser of two bads is not good enough for the American people"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEw0qKjP7hk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEw0qKjP7hk)) <-btw you should take 8 minutes out of your life to watch that, you might learn something if you're a voting American. Excepting the fact the CNN host is a total idiot.
(And for the record Canada needs some electoral and governmental reform as well).
-
Angel, you seem determined to paint the entire USA in a bad light, but you've got to recognize that many US citizens agree with you.
Looks at the current leadership.
Not enough of them though. :p
Yes, that definitely makes it okay to generalize everyone. I mean, it's obviously accurate because only 20% of the US population liked Bush enough to vote for him. Why not generalize with statistics like that?
Not generalizing. Simply saying it isn't enough. It needs to be more.
-
End of story.
You're losing sight of my original point - which was that the President is not the sole office you need to effect change in in order to prevent a recurrence of debacle's like Iraq. Congress and the voter electorate have approved and re-approved the entire mess multiple times. Thus, a social change is needed - merely altering the type of President that is elected isn't going to do squat.
Furthermore, the US had been posturing for the better part of six months before war was declared - had Congress wanted to prevent it, they could have passed a resolution or cut the funding in advance. Instead, they were and remain complicit in funding and supporting the war.
You can't just lay this mess at the foot of the Presidential office and say "That's what we need to change in the future to make things better!" The entire country, or at least the majority of the electorate who actually gave enough of a crap to bother voting, is at least partially responsible.
And thus we return full circle - it's not just the President, it's the entire society. Warmongering, no. Misguided, absolutely.
-
As far as I know although Congress can declare and fund a war they can't actually order the troops to do anything so without a pro-war president they'd be reduced to saying that they're at war and making pew-pew-pew noises. :D
So ultimately the blame does rest on the president. Even if Congress had a part to play in it.
-
Akalabeth, again, I know you're probably not aware, but the Bush administration supplied false information to Congress, the UN, and the American public in order to get support for the war. And the torture programs were carried out by the Bush administration, quite illegally, without congressional oversight.
The Bush administration has been expert in creating (or at least arguing for) just the kind of gray areas you worry about.
Exactly. Bush broke the law, and got away with it. One Congressman brought up terms for impeachment, which were swept under the rug. What's the next Democrat or Republican President going to get away with? When there's a precedence in-place for breaking the law and pursuing illegal invasions of sovereign countries. American laws and the constitutional rights of Americans are being violated, how many people know and how many people care? Come election time they're probably going to vote in another Bush (Obama, McCain, what's the difference really??) . Assuming of course that they even vote, which is not very likely. The voter turnout is what, 30%? Canada's not much better mind you.
Stop treating US citizens like sheep. While there are enough sheep in this country to allow things like Bush to happen, there are also a lot of people who 'know and care' -- enough that most of the populace recognizes that the country is on the wrong track.
Both McCain and Obama claim to be very different from Bush. I believe both of them.
You have to remember, Angel, that the president doesn't actually have all that much power. A president usually accomplishes a few easy tasks early in his first term, and then coasts through the remainder of that term (and possibly a second) doing nothing except bleeding popularity because the remaining issues on his plate are very difficult.
-
End of story.
You're losing sight of my original point - which was that the President is not the sole office you need to effect change in in order to prevent a recurrence of debacle's like Iraq. Congress and the voter electorate have approved and re-approved the entire mess multiple times. Thus, a social change is needed - merely altering the type of President that is elected isn't going to do squat.
A strong leader and voice of the country would certainly be a start.
The fact that corporations have enormous clout (or political influence) in washington is another problem. Government should be for the people, not the corporations, which, under some twisted laws have managed to gain nearly the same constitutional rights as people.
The two party system itself is laughable to an extent. In order to enter the presidential debates, a candidate needs 15% of the popular vote nationwide. How can someone like Ralph Nader, or one of the other candidates get that sort of support when they're RARELY show on TV, and when and if they are, they're flat out told by the newcasters "you're not going to be president". Or even better, they're blamed for Al Gore losing when Al Gore's loss was instead due to legal fraud or something of the nature rather than a 3rd candidate stealing votes. And if one believes some of the 3rd party talk saying two parties are pretty much the same party, then you're not living in a democracy you're living in a dictatorship where different people from the same party are being elected over and over. Though that view may be a little cynical.
And I certainly never intended to imply that the American society is warmongering. Foreign policy isn't dictated by the populace.
Stop treating US citizens like sheep. While there are enough sheep in this country to allow things like Bush to happen, there are also a lot of people who 'know and care' -- enough that most of the populace recognizes that the country is on the wrong track.
Both McCain and Obama claim to be very different from Bush. I believe both of them.
Are there enough people informed to make a difference? And do the donations of the people and the lobbying of the people have any power against the money and lobbying of the corporations?
Of course both McCain and Obama claim to be very different from Bush. You just said that people are mad at Bush. So having the candidates distance themselves from him is their top priority for scoring political points. Whether or not they actually ARE different, in practice, is another thing. I suppose in 4 years or less we'lll find out. But I won't hold my breath.
-
Obama's campaign has out-fundraised McCain by a tremendous margin, and something like 60-70 percent (I've heard as high as 90%) of his donations are under $200. They come from people, not corporations.
-
Obama's campaign has out-fundraised McCain by a tremendous margin, and something like 60-70 percent (I've heard as high as 90%) of his donations are under $200. They come from people, not corporations.
Obama's Corporate Donations (circa Feb 2008):
Goldman Sachs $421,763
Ubs Ag $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Harvard University $172,324
Citadel Investment Group $171,798
Time Warner $155,383
Morgan Stanley $155,196
Google Inc $152,802
University of California $143,029
Jenner & Block $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
Credit Suisse Group $118,250
http://agonist.org/timgatto/20080221/obama_doesnnt_take_special_interest_money (http://agonist.org/timgatto/20080221/obama_doesnnt_take_special_interest_money)
It may be true that his currently total donations are 90% individuals, but at the start what was the ratio? How much of his initial political success is owed to corporate donations? How many of these 200$ did he have when he was first starting out? And without the early corporate donations would he have had a chance?
-
Obama's Corporate Donations (circa Feb 2008):
Harvard University $172,324
University of California $143,029
Corporate donations. Interesting, universities are corporations now? One of them's even explicitly publicly run. The UC system will not be pleased with you.
It may be true that his currently total donations are 90% individuals, but at the start what was the ratio? How much of his initial political success is owed to corporate donations? How many of these 200$ did he have when he was first starting out? And without the early corporate donations would he have had a chance?
The ratio has, so far as it has been kept track of, was 70% individual donations since at least a couple weeks before Hillary conceded. (Or so said CNN.) No one realized what a masterstroke his decision to take donations via the Internet in this way was until its effects became incredibly apparent. And the answer your second question is, put bluntly, absolutely. He always had a chance. CNN doesn't get paid to put your face on the air, and political infighting inside the party does not become a public mudslinging contest with TV ads because that would be criminally stupid come the time when you have to face the other party. The message he preaches, though admittedly vague until lately, was one that resonated. You don't need all that much to get the nomination. (Witness the number of people who tried.) Only after that does the money really begin to talk.
-
Obama's campaign has out-fundraised McCain by a tremendous margin, and something like 60-70 percent (I've heard as high as 90%) of his donations are under $200. They come from people, not corporations.
Obama's Corporate Donations (circa Feb 2008):
Goldman Sachs $421,763
Ubs Ag $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Harvard University $172,324
Citadel Investment Group $171,798
Time Warner $155,383
Morgan Stanley $155,196
Google Inc $152,802
University of California $143,029
Jenner & Block $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
Credit Suisse Group $118,250
http://agonist.org/timgatto/20080221/obama_doesnnt_take_special_interest_money (http://agonist.org/timgatto/20080221/obama_doesnnt_take_special_interest_money)
It may be true that his currently total donations are 90% individuals, but at the start what was the ratio? How much of his initial political success is owed to corporate donations? How many of these 200$ did he have when he was first starting out? And without the early corporate donations would he have had a chance?
NGTM-1R made most of the points I would've. I also want to say that this kneejerk 'corporate donations = evil' and 'politicans = corporate puppets' response is a bit of an odd kneejerk. I don't really want to argue with you, I want you to develop a more nuanced point of view.
Hardline rhetoric and unthinking belief -- the affective death spiral -- are the enemies of human progress,.
-
Angel, I know you want Americans to wake up and vote for a third party. Without major political reform, that will never happen I'm afraid.
-
Angel, I know you want Americans to wake up and vote for a third party. Without major political reform, that will never happen I'm afraid.
And without a third party, major political reform will never happen.
-
So I guess we agree then.
Right now, in the current situation, this is not going to change. You can get as upset as you want, but right now a vote for a third party is roughly equivalent to setting your ballet on fire.
-
America has had many parties, and they've changed dramatically over the course of our history. That evolution will continue. The current steady-state may hold for a while yet, but the parties will continue to evolve. They've changed dramatically over the last ten years alone.
-
So I guess we agree then.
Right now, in the current situation, this is not going to change. You can get as upset as you want, but right now a vote for a third party is roughly equivalent to setting your ballet on fire.
The only reason that a third party will never get into power is because you believe what the media tells you. "Ralph Nader, you'll never be president, are you trying to spoil this election?!"
If everyone who thought a third party would never get elected, changed their minds, and actually voted for one, the world might be in for a shock. (and then another shock, when said-individual gets assassinated).
Obama's Corporate Donations (circa Feb 2008):
Harvard University $172,324
University of California $143,029
Corporate donations. Interesting, universities are corporations now? One of them's even explicitly publicly run. The UC system will not be pleased with you.
Yes, it is interesting:
"Harvard University (incorporated as The President and Fellows of Harvard College) is a private university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., and a member of the Ivy League. Founded in 1636 by the colonial Massachusetts legislature,[2] Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. It is also the first and oldest corporation in North America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University)
Not sure why UC is on there, evidently whoever made the list doesnt do his research.
-
Data to back that up? The claim that the majority of Americans receive their opinions from 'the media' (identify that, please), or the claim about potential third-party votes?
-
If everyone who thought a third party would never get elected, changed their minds, and actually voted for one, the world might be in for a shock. (and then another shock, when said-individual gets assassinated).
And what about those of us who feel that the gamut of American third parties are, by and large, and for lack of a better term, rather wacko? I've read elements of the platforms of the Constitutional, Green, Libertarian, etc. parties, and I'm perfectly content with sticking with the current 140-year-old system, flawed though it may be.
Now, that's not to preclude someone coming along tomorrow and founding a perfectly sane alternate party (which has happened in the past...the original Republican party came into being in this way), but given the general course of things, I wouldn't bet on it.
-
The only reason that a third party will never get into power is because you believe what the media tells you. "Ralph Nader, you'll never be president, are you trying to spoil this election?!"
If everyone who thought a third party would never get elected, changed their minds, and actually voted for one, the world might be in for a shock. (and then another shock, when said-individual gets assassinated).
And if the wee faeries came and danced in the woods, we'd have a century of good luck. People don't ever change their minds easily.
What our government is attempting to do is capture some of the good aspects of a state of nature; the freedom. It fails at doing that, however, because people tend to band together. In this case people have joined under Republican / Democrat flags. This could change, but it would need something massive to sway public opinion.
-
Data to back that up? The claim that the majority of Americans receive their opinions from 'the media' (identify that, please), or the claim about potential third-party votes?
Americans like any human being form their own opinions based upon whatever information is at their disposal and if information on 3rd party candidates is exceedingly hard to come by or limited in distribution and even when distributed is ridiculed and derided as being a waste of time, then the popular opinion will naturally follow. Similarly if in political discussions with friends and colleagues, and only two names are ever mentioned, those two names will be the ones most likely to be considered. People are more prone to influence than they care to believe.
Let me ask you this. When you chose the person you planned to vote for, did the thought of voting for someone other than McCain or Obama cross your mind? And if so, did you for any length, seriously consider and investigate the 3rd party platforms and opinions?
What our government is attempting to do is capture some of the good aspects of a state of nature; the freedom. It fails at doing that, however, because people tend to band together. In this case people have joined under Republican / Democrat flags. This could change, but it would need something massive to sway public opinion.
All change needs is a voice, but if that voice needs 20 million listeners, before it can even get the chance to speak, no one will ever hear it.
-
If everyone who thought a third party would never get elected, changed their minds, and actually voted for one, the world might be in for a shock. (and then another shock, when said-individual gets assassinated).
That sounds suspiciously like conspiracy-theorist nonsense. care to elaborate so you don't look like a quack?
Multi-party systems are no better than two-party systems; look at Canada. Hell, better yet, look at countries with coalition governments and what a shambles their politics can be. Politics is politics - doesn't matter what country it's in, systems corrupt otherwise good people who mean well.
-
Americans like any human being form their own opinions based upon whatever information is at their disposal and if information on 3rd party candidates is exceedingly hard to come by or limited in distribution and even when distributed is ridiculed and derided as being a waste of time, then the popular opinion will naturally follow. Similarly if in political discussions with friends and colleagues, and only two names are ever mentioned, those two names will be the ones most likely to be considered. People are more prone to influence than they care to believe.
Let me ask you this. When you chose the person you planned to vote for, did the thought of voting for someone other than McCain or Obama cross your mind? And if so, did you for any length, seriously consider and investigate the 3rd party platforms and opinions?
Do you have any data to back that up? This is rhetoric.
And yes, of course I considered every candidate. I even looked up the really far-out ones and checked out their platforms.
-
That sounds suspiciously like conspiracy-theorist nonsense. care to elaborate so you don't look like a quack?
What, if someone came into power and really shook things up you don't think people would get pissed off? If Ralph Nader came into power and instituted a social Health Care system similar to Canada's, wouldn't it make sense for the people who make a crapload of money off of the US system to get a little annoyed when their income changed drastically? Or if he told the corporations to get out of Iraq, let Iraq run their own damn country. Or if he actually moved for peace in Israel and Palestine, rather than simply backing the Israelis no matter what they do.
People get shot dead for 20 bucks, you don't think someone would shoot the president if they were going to lose 200 million? or some astronomical figure like. Hell Haliburton has made 13.6 Billion dollars through activities in Iraq as of 2005 ( http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/lesar_stock.html ), you don't think money like that is worth killing for? If a president told them "get out of Iraq, give them back their country, give them back their economy".
Multi-party systems are no better than two-party systems; look at Canada. Hell, better yet, look at countries with coalition governments and what a shambles their politics can be. Politics is politics - doesn't matter what country it's in, systems corrupt otherwise good people who mean well.
France forms nothing but coalition governments.
In World Health Care rankings, France is ranked #1. The United States is ranked 37th
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)
In Education France is ranked 12th, the United States is ranked 18th
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml)
Canada btw, is basically a two party system. Liberals vs the Conservatives. The NDP are a minor party and could only ever form a coalition, which they have done on occasion. And the Bloc Quebois by their very nature cannot lead a government because they'll never gain enough seats. As for the Green party, well they're the ones who can't get media airtime in Canada. But basically it's either Liberals or Conservatives and then everyone else.
But you're right, dictatorships are the most effective form of government for getting things done. (not that you said that of course, but just going by extension) Have one party, and get your way no matter what. Even two parties is inefficient.
Americans like any human being form their own opinions based upon whatever information is at their disposal and if information on 3rd party candidates is exceedingly hard to come by or limited in distribution and even when distributed is ridiculed and derided as being a waste of time, then the popular opinion will naturally follow.
Let me ask you this. When you chose the person you planned to vote for, did the thought of voting for someone other than McCain or Obama cross your mind? And if so, did you for any length, seriously consider and investigate the 3rd party platforms and opinions?
Do you have any data to back that up? This is rhetoric.
And yes, of course I considered every candidate. I even looked up the really far-out ones and checked out their platforms.
Rhetoric? It's common sense man. The human being is the sum of their experiences. And all information passed by humans is shaped by humanity whether they intend it or not. Now whether it influences you enough to change your mind on a subject, is another matter.
And if you actually consider every candidate, I congratulate you. Though when you chose to vote for Obama was it because of his platform?
-
Please provide data to back up your claim that US citizens make most of their electoral choices based on data from 'the media'.
Please define 'the media', citing specific sources (i.e. newspapers, television channels) and excluding forms of communication that you do not believe qualify.
Many people go to school for years to understand topics like these. I know people personally who study just this topic -- how people select their candidates. Their conclusions are not nearly as simple as yours. You can find such research in journals of political science as well as reputable books.
If you're going to suggest that US politics is controlled by the media, please understand that you sound very much like the conservatives who currently control the executive (but not the legislative) branch.
You seem to have a very simple view of the way the US (and the world) works. I hope this view will develop further in the future.
-
Please provide data to back up your claim that US citizens make most of their electoral choices based on data from 'the media'.
Please define 'the media', citing specific sources (i.e. newspapers, television channels) and excluding forms of communication that you do not believe qualify.
Many people go to school for years to understand topics like these. I know people personally who study just this topic -- how people select their candidates. Their conclusions are not nearly as simple as yours. You can find such research in journals of political science as well as reputable books.
It's funny how I'm quoting sources out the ass for everything I say and no one gives anything in return.
The media, ie the Newspapers, the Television, distributed news on the Internet predominantly show TWO candidates from TWO parties. Obviously, most people with vote for one of those two. You don't need a study to show that, it's just common sense. You can't vote for something you don't know anything about, well you can, but then you're even dumber than ever if you do (and by "you" I mean people in general).
The electoral debates are going to come on whenever, if they do. Last time 51 million watched them. This time, likely another 50 million people will watch. That's 50 million people, seeing two choices.
But if you need real hard data rather than common sense, then, well I left my omniscience in my other pants. Sorry.
-
It's funny how I'm quoting sources out the ass for everything I say and no one gives anything in return.
You've quoted some Wikipedia articles and a NWO conspiracy scare video.
*clap*
Really, your entire argument is sounding like rhetoric. It's the same old thing we here from conspiracy nuts and overly-zealous third party folks every election year. You're making generalizations without giving hard, concrete statistics or facts to back it up. We're not asking for omniscience here, hardly. We just want a little bit of credibility.
-
Ah frakking pirate day. I'm not arguing in pirate, 24 hours later maybe.
-
What, if someone came into power an' really shook thin's up ye don't think people would get pissed off? If Ralph Nader came into power an' instituted a social Health Care system similar t' Canada's, wouldn't it make sense fer th' people who make a crapload o' booty off o' th' US system t' get a little annoyed when their income changed drastically? Or if he told th' corporations t' get out o' Iraq, let Iraq run their own damn country, with a chest full of booty. Or if he actually moved fer peace in Israel an' Palestine, rather than simply backin' th' Israelis nay matter what they do.
People get shot dead fer 20 bucks, ye don't think someone would shoot th' president if they were goin' t' lose 200 million? or some astronomical figure like, by Blackbeard's sword. Hell Haliburton has made 13.6 Billion dollars through activities in Iraq as o' 2005 ( http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/lesar_stock.html ), ye don't think booty like wot is worth killin' fer? Yarrrrr! If a president told them "get out o' Iraq, give them back their country, give them back their economy".
I think you're over-simplifying things enormously. For one, a President without some backing from corporate America could never get elected in the first place. Besides, corporations have far more effective ways of leveraging political action than killing off a candidate.
France forms nothin' but coalition governments.
In World Health Care rankin's, France is ranked #1. The United States is ranked 37th
http://www.photius.com/rankin's/healthranks.html (http://www.photius.com/rankin's/healthranks.html)
In Education France is ranked 12th, th' United States is ranked 18th
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml)
Canada btw, is basically a two party system. Liberals vs th' Conservatives. The NDP are a minor party an' could only e'er form a coalition, which they have done on occasion. An' th' Bloc Quebois by their very nature cannot lead a government on account o' they'll ne'er gain enough seats, and dinna spare the whip, pass the grog! As fer th' Green party, well they're th' ones who can't get media airtime in Canada. But basically it's either Liberals or Conservatives an' then everyone else.
France has a whole host of other enormous issues to deal with, not the least of which is protectionist trade practices that are STILL disrupting the economy of the EU overall. There are many countries with coalition governments that rank both above and below the United States on various social measures. It's irrelevant.
Furthermore, where exactly do you think I'm from? I've lived in Canada all my life - I'm extremely well aware of how our political system functions. The reason why I brought it up is because the US is far closer to Canada politically than it is to Europe, and look how our so-called multi-party system works. It's still a two-side issue. The only coalitions the NDP has ever formed is on voting issues in order to bring down a government - they've never been a part of a governing coalition. In fact, our system doesn't even work that way. Allied parties support specific bills, not a government (case in point being the Conservatives and the Bloc).
Beyond that, you seem to think that magically introducing a third party alternate candidate is somehow going to "fix" the US internationally. Sorry to say, but such a simplistic fix isn't going to do it - not if the country, voter base, and corporate system that elects him/her doesn't change significantly.
And is today "International Talk Like A Pirate Day"?
-
Please provide data t' back up yer claim wot US citizens make most o' their electoral choices based on data from 'th' media'.
Please define 'th' media', citin' specific sources (i.e. newspapers, television channels) an' excludin' forms o' communication wot ye dern't believe qualify.
Many people go t' school fer years t' understand topics like these. I know people personally who study just this 'ere topic -- how people select their candidates, ye scurvey dog. Their conclusions are not nearly as simple as yours. Ye can find such research in journals o' political science as well as reputable books.
It's funny how I'm quotin' sources out th' ass fer everythin' I say an' nay one gives anythin' in return.
The media, ie th' Newspapers, th' Television, distributed news on th' High Seas predominantly show TWO candidates from TWO parties. Obviously, most people with vote fer one o' those two. Ye don't need a study t' show wot, it's just common sense. Ye can't vote fer somethin' ye don't know anythin' about, well ye can, but then ye're even dumber than e'er if ye do (an' by "ye" I mean people in general).
The electoral debates are goin' t' come on whenever, if they do. Last time 51 million watched them. Fire the cannons! Fire the cannons! This 'ere time, likely another 50 million people will watch. Shiver me timbers! That's 50 million people, seein' two choices. Drink up me hearties, yo ho, and a bottle of rum!
But if ye need real hard data rather than common sense, then, well I port me omniscience in me other pants. Sorry, avast.
I need real hard data. Common sense is too often wrong.
Please provide data to back up the claim that Democratic and Republican candidates get media coverage that is disproportionate to public interest in them. An example of this kind of data would be an analysis of how many newspaper articles or minutes of television are devoted to each candidate, though you might also want to look at blogs, underground newsletters, and word-of-mouth.
Furthermore, please provide data on how US citizens select their electoral choices.
You don't need to be omniscient. Political scientists make their careers out of harvesting this data. You might be able to locate a database online or in a political science journal.
I'm not really interested in your general thesis -- that a third-party candidate would 'repair' the US. I'm interested in getting you to understand the complexities of what you're saying. 'Repairing' the US is not a clearcut task; there are no definite objectives or methods. It all depends on what you think the important things in the US are.
I take any chance I can get to promote pluralistic thought.
-
Beyond that, you seem to think that magically introducing a third party alternate candidate is somehow going to "fix" the US internationally. Sorry to say, but such a simplistic fix isn't going to do it - not if the country, voter base, and corporate system that elects him/her doesn't change significantly.
Obviously the US wouldn't be "fixed" in one term, but the proper leader can certainly set it down the right track. Here's one such individual, and though he's not running for president you can see in one of the videos who he endorses and it's neither McCain nor Obama. These videos are well worth watching. Note that Ron is essentially a third party candidate, Libertarian party, though he did run for the presidential nomination in the Republican party.
Ron Paul on the economy:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrIFkNispMk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLy77eOIVk
Ron shows the world he has a pair. (Even though the idiot Guilliani gets all the applause)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8
His stance on the current candidates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk
A good compilation video (though the music gets too loud):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
Ron Paul on the Economy last year (predicting all the **** that's going down right now):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AYrPZ1vPBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaTMqdYLAD4
And on Georgia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygg2uWsKK6w
If a man like that became president. The world, and more importantly America, would be much better off. I may not always know what the hell I'm talking about, but this guy sure as hell does. It's too bad the american economy has to fall to pieces before people realize it. Though of course, people probably STILL don't realize it. McCain after all, did get the nomination. And the "yes man" Rudy Gulliani got all the applause during the debate for reasons that I certainly can't fathom.
-
The ratio has, so far as it has been kept track of, was 70% individual donations since at least a couple weeks before Hillary conceded. (Or so said CNN.) No one realized what a masterstroke his decision to take donations via the Internet in this way was until its effects became incredibly apparent. And the answer your second question is, put bluntly, absolutely. He always had a chance. CNN doesn't get paid to put your face on the air, and political infighting inside the party does not become a public mudslinging contest with TV ads because that would be criminally stupid come the time when you have to face the other party.
Btw, an old reply but something I've seen new light shed upon
Obama's donations, as of July 17th 2008
67% of all his donations were $500 dollars or more
Hillary Clinton
89% of her donations were $500 dollars or more
Source: Page 18, July 17th, the New York Times.
You know any friends of yours that throw 500 dollars down on a person running for a presidential nomination???
Where I saw it first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqitHwn72os&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqitHwn72os&feature=related) (around the 1:20 mark)
-
Voted for Mccane. (spelling is a pun)