98 replies to this topic

[fanfarecircuit]

oh...and when a democratic president wages an unjustified 5 year war costing thousands of american lives and billions a week without apology(still to this day)...i'll hate them just as much.

enjoy your cliff, mr. conservative.

[pebbles]

Kelly A said:

Go finger your sister's asshat you dumfuck pinko racist fuck bigot.. fuck.

(Sorry, just practicing. Probably one too many fucks. )

Look, if you need to have that many fucks, maybe you should take this to the Love and Life forum or something.... :p

[drainyou]

pebbles said:

Look, if you need to have that many fucks, maybe you should take this to the Love and Life forum or something.... :p

Is there such a thing??:eek:

[Kelly A]

I believe that may be the first time I've ever said that.

[drainyou]

Kelly A said:

I believe that may be the first time I've ever said that.

I would hope so... aside from the absolutely inappropriate and shocking language - it made no literal sense at all...:D

[Hezalin]

remring said:

While I have not agreed with all of Drains commentary he has stated on several occasions that he believes it would be stupid if people do not vote for a candidate because he or she is black but at the same time he has commented on the fact that it still exists.

I have not read any comments so far which would point to him being outwardly racist. I think that the intent is in the article and it is an issue and it will continue to be an issue.

We cannot pretend that Obama is not black or that Hillary Clinton is not a female or that John McCain is not old. We want our candidates to relate to us.

I for one, do not want to relate to my president, or them to relate to me.  They could never do that. I want them to do threr fucking job, and not get us all killed. and to be able to pay my bills, that's all. LOL

[isilida 32]

this is true. it's almost impossible for a president to relate americans. not all of them anyway. we have a hard enough time as it is relating with each other sometimes.

[Mary Alice]

I think that due to todays media people know so much about all the candidates, news travels so fast, and they can't even slip up without it being on YouTube.  So that makes this kind of campaigning very different from previous.

The talk about "relating" to the candidate is true - so many people expect that now, and really have the opportunity to see a lot of the candidate due to the media today.  but Hezalin's joking tone aside I agree - I want a president who does their job, that's more important to me than I relate to them.  But some people will invariably make decisions based on their gut - and the candidates really will have to make people feel they relate to them to get elected.  It's true though - my boss or a doctor or someone can say something upsetting, and if it seems like they're saying it in a personable tone and listening to me when I respond back, it's ok.  It's only when I feel like I'm being brushed off my feelings are hurt.  You don't actually know the candidates, despite all you see, so it's totally a different scenario, but a lot of people react the same way.  When a candidate seems to address something that personally matters to you, even if it's just a token or something small, and even if you don't even believe believe the candidate can do anything about it, you as a voters at least feel like you're given attention, listened to, valued.  Like I said I think this is false, because unlike my boss or my doctor, I don't know Barack or Hillary, but I do know people who react to what they do like they do know them.  

So from where I stand this is the problem is that todays media is giving some people a false sense that they know the candidates better than they do and and judging on false assumptions.

I don't think the democratic article in the the first paragraph is racist.  I don't think that democrats want to turn this into a race issue.  Hillary is a very smart lady and I don't think she is racist at all.  I am worried about how she's taken every possible swipe in this campaign, I think she's gotten a bit ruthless, but saying that she does better amongs working class white voters is actually pretty tame - she has done better with them, so that's fair to say.  The article doesn't go into any reasons why, so I don't think it tackles the racism issue.  I don't think it's saying that the only reason people are voting for Hillary is becuase they're racist - most of them probably love people of all colors and just feel she'd be the best candidate - but that article doesn't speculate on it either way.

I don't see saying statistics as racist, they have to be used in a certain context and in this article I don't think they are.  Personally, however, I worry that the working white class people aren't considering Obama for the very reason of relating mentioned above.  Hillary can fake it and pass as one of them, but Obama's skin color makes some people look at him a little bit closer and they can see that he's not.  Truth is they're both a far cry from the average working class white person, they've both had stuggles and challenges and they are smart enough people to be able to connect their experience to others and try and understand them - but they also have been in some very specialized environments for so long - and value their Ivy League college educations.  I think it's ludicrous when you are calling working class white people ones without college educations for either Hillary or Barack to insinuate they live the same lifestyle as this group.  But I do believe they both care about working class people - of all races - just because they aren't poor working class whites themselves doesn't diminsh my faith in either of them to serve this demographic.  

While I find some of Hillary's antics contrived, I also believe she does care about poor working class white people and will do good for them, but I also think she is smart enough to know that they will listen to her more if she tries to be one of them and benefits from being able to pretend like she is in a way Barack can't.  That makes her a talented campaigner taking advantage of her strengths, in my book, not a horrible person.  

But I think I am leaning towards Barack.  In todays environment he will just have to try his best to reach as many people as he can and play on every strength he has.  I think most Americans will vote for a back man if they think he's the best candidate - the issue is how can he convince certain people to give him enough time and attention so he'll have the chance to prove that he's the best candidate.  Hillary, with an all ready politically esablished name, putting on a fine show of taking shots and acting like she hangs out at the bar every night with her friends from the factory, has automatically made them think "this woman seems like my president" - and then they listen to her.  It's not racism it's just some kind of gut reaction.  If Obama can find what it takes to relate to them and get them to listen, then I'm sure his # of votes among working class white people will rise.  They aren't afraid of a Black president, the white candidate has just been more successful in making them feel listened to and, in turn, they've listened to her.

[remring]

If people did not relate to their candidates how do you account for 92% of black people in North Carolina and Indiana voting for Barack Obama?

[isilida 32]

of course they relate to the candidates. we're not saying that. we're just that we don't want our presidents and presidential candidates relating to us. nor do we think they should. even during an election year. but they do. that much is clear.

[remring]

isilida 32 said:

of course they relate to the candidates. we're not saying that. we're just that we don't want our presidents and presidential candidates relating to us. nor do we think they should. even during an election year. but they do. that much is clear.

What is wrong with a presidential candidate relating to the struggles of a citizen, feeling their pain or turmoil?

[mrdogen]

""oh...and when a democratic president wages an unjustified 5 year war costing thousands of american lives and billions a week without apology(still to this day)...i'll hate them just as much.""

Then you've got a lot of hating to do when you study the entirety of the Vietnam War.  Kennedy, then Johnson--both, um, Democrats--sent 10s of thousands of boys to their deaths, and were responsible for the deaths of uncountable South East Asians.  Of course, Nixon did his shameful share at the end of the war, too, but I'm giving you two examples of Democrats.

Not to mention that Harry Truman himself, a Democrat was responsible for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, instantly killing hundreds of thousands of men, woman and children.  An absolute terrorist act, if there ever was one.  

Indeed, there's plenty of examples of Democrats waging war and murdering plenty of people.

[isilida 32]

remring said:

What is wrong with a presidential candidate relating to the struggles of a citizen, feeling their pain or turmoil?

I imagine it would be hard to relate to every american and their plight. There's too many of us to be able to do that. So a president has to come up with relatable issues that are universal enough for him/her to be able to relate to everyone. The economy for example. For me, in the end, it seems like pandering and more politcal wankery. Just do your job. Although i think others have explained it better so i would suggest reading back to their posts (hezalin and mary alice specifically) for the answer to your question.

[Red Frog]

mrdogen said:

""oh...and when a democratic president wages an unjustified 5 year war costing thousands of american lives and billions a week without apology(still to this day)...i'll hate them just as much.""

Then you've got a lot of hating to do when you study the entirety of the Vietnam War.  Kennedy, then Johnson--both, um, Democrats--sent 10s of thousands of boys to their deaths, and were responsible for the deaths of uncountable South East Asians.  Of course, Nixon did his shameful share at the end of the war, too, but I'm giving you two examples of Democrats.

Not to mention that Harry Truman himself, a Democrat was responsible for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, instantly killing hundreds of thousands of men, woman and children.  An absolute terrorist act, if there ever was one.  

Indeed, there's plenty of examples of Democrats waging war and murdering plenty of people.

But that's not a party position, so hating the party because of it is ridiculous.

[isilida 32]

I think he/she was making a point to fanfaire about how ludicrous her/his original statement was. And mrdogen did a good job of it. I believe that fanfaire is the one who the hates the party based on what you said red.

[mrdogen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdogen  
""oh...and when a democratic president wages an unjustified 5 year war costing thousands of american lives and billions a week without apology(still to this day)...i'll hate them just as much.""

Then you've got a lot of hating to do when you study the entirety of the Vietnam War. Kennedy, then Johnson--both, um, Democrats--sent 10s of thousands of boys to their deaths, and were responsible for the deaths of uncountable South East Asians. Of course, Nixon did his shameful share at the end of the war, too, but I'm giving you two examples of Democrats.

Not to mention that Harry Truman himself, a Democrat was responsible for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, instantly killing hundreds of thousands of men, woman and children. An absolute terrorist act, if there ever was one.

Indeed, there's plenty of examples of Democrats waging war and murdering plenty of people.


""But that's not a party position, so hating the party because of it is ridiculous.""

I beg to differ.  All Democratic Presidents (and even candidates, for that matter) since Truman, have waged wars or vowed to continue them through their administration.  I'd say it's certainly an aspect of the "party" itself.  Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and B. Clinton, each expressed the willingness to bomb the hell out of sovereign countries.  I'll remind you that in the 2004 race, John Kerry himself vowed during his presidential campaign to INCREASE troop levels in Iraq and "get the job done."  In fairness, only Carter didn't start or continue a war during his term. But you can bet your ass, if he thought it was warranted, he wouldn't have hesitated to use massive force against another country.


Indeed, it's been a party position of the Democratic Party over the last several decades
to not hesitate to wage long, costly and arguably illegal wars themselves.  Both parties have always been just as willing to do this, the Democratic Party is just more sly about how they spin their actions.  They're both parties of continuing the military might and war-capable presence of the U.S in the world.

[drainyou]

And would it be OK to throw Israel into this conversation??

Democrat president and liberal UN stealing Palestine simply to give it to the Zionists.. yeah... hows that one been working out?

[remring]

drainyou said:

And would it be OK to throw Israel into this conversation??

Democrat president and liberal UN stealing Palestine simply to give it to the Jewish people.. yeah... hows that one been working out?

I think that is a very simplistic approach to look at Israel. For one this had more to do with the UK than the US.

[drainyou]

remring said:

I think that is a very simplistic approach to look at Israel. For one this had more to do with the UK than the US.

Yes, it was simplistic - but also true...

And really it has a lot to do with Nazi Germany, and the Poland ghettos, and all kinds of other (for the point I was trying to make) superfluous agendas..

But my overlying point, a Democrat president (I think a fairly divided congress that didn't really help any) and a liberal-oriented United Nations basically stole land and...

Well, you seem quite educated, so.. you know - discussion for another thread..:cool: