iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

[algerwetmore]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

I hope you are right about a third party developing. James Howard Kunstler claims the Republican Party is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and that it may fall like the old Whig party.

I would hope at some point, the Republican party would drop the fundamentalist/evangelical theocracy, which is turning off many pragmatic
constitutionalists.

[Master Shake]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

Ah, Zbiggy. A re-tread from the glorious Carter years.

[vinoveri]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

I would've voted for Jennifer Lopez if she were running because she's hot, a testament to diversity, and could bring us all together as a country singin and dancin. Oh yeah, an I really liked that movie Anaconda; she showed some real leadership and courage in dealing with the carniverous giant serpent.

Will have to settle on voting for Ron Paul though.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

The sentiment that electing a half-black man "would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country" is why, if Bush isn't the very last white man elected, he will be one of the last. It will be seen to be "reactionary" and regressive to elect a white man President - the argument will be that only a "person of color" can really understand the growing non-white population's needs and present the US in the proper light to foreign nations. And since 90% of the world's population is non-white and (largely) resentful of whites, we can expect them to always want a non-white as President. This isn't a one-time thing.

Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites. For example, after 200 years of white male Secretaries of State, we have not had a white man in that position since Warren Christopher in 1996. Since then we've had the first white woman Secretary, the first black male Secretary, and now the first black female Secretary. It is possible that Obama will choose a white male in order to try to persuade people that he is not a leftist extremist, but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.

[jk]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

The sentiment that electing a half-black man "would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country" is why, if Bush isn't the very last white man elected, he will be one of the last. It will be seen to be "reactionary" and regressive to elect a white man President - the argument will be that only a "person of color" can really understand the growing non-white population's needs and present the US in the proper light to foreign nations. And since 90% of the world's population is non-white and (largely) resentful of whites, we can expect them to always want a non-white as President. This isn't a one-time thing.

Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites. For example, after 200 years of white male Secretaries of State, we have not had a white man in that position since Warren Christopher in 1996. Since then we've had the first white woman Secretary, the first black male Secretary, and now the first black female Secretary. It is possible that Obama will choose a white male in order to try to persuade people that he is not a leftist extremist, but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.

to reiterate something i've said on occasion in economic discussions here: one of the things i like about itulip is that once in a while it lets me feel like a relative optimist, something i don't often experience.

[Raz]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

... but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.

Same thing happened in my city, too. And I agree with EVERYTHING you said, Mn_Mark. But I knew our country was finished decades ago. Once the masses realize that they can elect people who will shower them with goodies by taxing others (Democrats) or mortgaging us all (Republicans AND Democrats) the republic becomes a democracy - and no democracy (the tyranny of 51%) in all of human history has survived.
Equal opportunity will now be officially abandoned for egalitarianism.

[metalman]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

The sentiment that electing a half-black man "would be a very good thing for social relations within this increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial country" is why, if Bush isn't the very last white man elected, he will be one of the last. It will be seen to be "reactionary" and regressive to elect a white man President - the argument will be that only a "person of color" can really understand the growing non-white population's needs and present the US in the proper light to foreign nations. And since 90% of the world's population is non-white and (largely) resentful of whites, we can expect them to always want a non-white as President. This isn't a one-time thing.

Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites. For example, after 200 years of white male Secretaries of State, we have not had a white man in that position since Warren Christopher in 1996. Since then we've had the first white woman Secretary, the first black male Secretary, and now the first black female Secretary. It is possible that Obama will choose a white male in order to try to persuade people that he is not a leftist extremist, but in general, from now on, white men will not be chosen in such highly symbolic public positions. The same thing has happened in my major city in the Superintendant of Schools position. We have had blacks in that position for over a decade. At one point a white man was appointed interim Superintendant while a search process was on for a new one, and the outrage from the "communities of color" was such that he had to resign. Simply because of his color.

So if white people think that "people of color" will begin to see past race and just think of people as people because one of theirs gets elected President, think again. The argument from now on will be that the election of a white man to the Presidency - and in the not-distant future, to any highly visible, symbolic position - will be an intolerable regression to a barbaric past. Just as has happened to the idealistic whites in South Africa of whom 70% voted to end apartheid and share political power and who are now legally barred from owning more than 49% of their own businesses, much less having any chance at political power.

In my opinion, the election of Obama, assuming it occurs, will be the symbolic end of the United States of America. The actual end is some years down the road, when balkanization reaches a point where the nation breaks apart. But at that point, in retrospect, it will be reasonable to see the election of the black leftist Barack Hussein Obama as the first clear indication that the historic United States of America has ended and a racially polarized, increasingly Third-World-ized nation (with all the corruption and economic stagnation that implies) began to take its place.

take it you're not into this 'change' then?

i say to my fellow conservatives, if we didn't want a liberal elected maybe we should not have elected administrations that perused policies that blew up the economy.

the economy under obama will melt down completely. 30+ years of corruption and foolishness will come down on his head.

how will he lead out of it? he can't, but he'll try. he'd better start by winding up for a big 'blood sweat and tears' speech on inauguration day so he doesn't get tarred for wrecking the economy. then he has 2 yrs to fix it, which he can't do... isn't possible to fix 30 years in 2.

so don't worry. your fear of perpetual non-whiteness are not likely to come true. too bad, because obama is all about merit, not race or what school you went to or your accent, and that's going to get lost.

[we_are_toast]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

Once a non-white gains a symbolic position of power in this era, that position tends to become exclusively the "property" of non-whites.

Nothing like laying your racism right out there on the table for the whole world to see!

Look at the polling data! Obama will probably get 93% of the black vote, a Dem typically gets 90%. McCain will probably get 53% of the white vote, pretty typical of a Repub.

The color that's important in this election is GREEN (or in my case, GOLD)! Everything is taking a back seat to the economy. Thankfully, you racist nut cases are becoming less and less relevant.

[metalman]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

Same thing happened in my city, too. And I agree with EVERYTHING you said, Mn_Mark. But I knew our country was finished decades ago. Once the masses realize that they can elect people who will shower them with goodies by taxing others (Democrats) or mortgaging us all (Republicans AND Democrats) the republic becomes a democracy - and no democracy (the tyranny of 51%) in all of human history has survived.
Equal opportunity will now be officially abandoned for egalitarianism.

this 'generation we' makes me nervous.

"In my travels around the world, I have been very impressed by today's young people. They are smart, caring, creative, and generous. I share the hope expressed by Greenberg and Weber that this new generation will help re-orient our planet and conquer the problems of poverty, war, and pollution that currently plague it."
Muhammad Yunus Founder of Grameen Bank and Co-Winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize

this movement is the kernel of the ultimate 'we' program... a socialism to grow to wipe out what's left of real capitalism once the money vaporises from the ponzy capitalism that paid for the gen-we's fantasy kumbaya techno utopia. let's see how generous they feel when they can't afford to put gas in the scion, the pay the cell phone or broadband cable bill.

look for a boom in amazon sales of das kapital.

[metalman]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

Nothing like laying your racism right out there on the table for the whole world to see!

Look at the polling data! Obama will probably get 93% of the black vote, a Dem typically gets 90%. McCain will probably get 53% of the white vote, pretty typical of a Repub.

The color that's important in this election is GREEN (or in my case, GOLD)! Everything is taking a back seat to the economy. Thankfully, you racist nut cases are becoming less and less relevant.

it's a generational thing. you can tell old farts because they tend to pay attention to race. young folks don't give a shit. no surprise... since the 1970s every tv show and movie and ad celebrates the black/white good guy team and vilifies racists as stupid and ignorant. it's about time sentiments about race in the usa caught up with our merit based cultural values as americans. good riddince to the racist generations. gone forever.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

"Thankfully, you racist nut cases are becoming less and less relevant."

"it's about time sentiments about race in the usa caught up with our merit based cultural values as americans. good riddince (sic) to the racist generations. gone forever. "

Tell that to the white South Africans. In 1994, 70% of them drank the white liberal koolaid and voted themselves into the political minority on the promise that if they would just stop being racists, the future would be all about merit and equality and reconciliation. Instead they now find themselves under siege, legally discriminated against in jobs, prohibited from owning more than 49% of their own family businesses (they have to find a black person to give 51% to), the victims of rampant crime, rape, and murder (with a 2-3% rate of solving the murders). The famous white South Africa liberal writers whose writings contributed to ending apartheid are moving away to Australia and Europe. They have seen firsthand what they did to their own people and now they are running away. Nice for them, not so nice for the people who can't afford to leave.

But you never hear about South Africa anymore. White western liberals prefer not to think about what has happened there in the wake of the adoption of their reform program. Or in Zimbabwe. There is a slow-motion anti-white genocide unfolding there, but it doesn't fit the liberal script so it's not discussed.

So we are in an era where young white people have been indoctrinated for the last several decades in their schools and in the mass media that the history of whites is shameful and that they must never think in terms of race - while blacks, latinos, and others openly identify with their own ethnic groups and interests, openly speak of themselves as a people based solely on race, openly push for special considerations based solely on race rather than merit. So we are going to have to go through the fire here, until young white people reach an age where they are trying to raise a family in safety with decent schools and without racial discrimination against whites. They say a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. There's a whole generation of young whites who have a lot of muggings coming their way. Right now they are in the full flush of youthful passion and idealism, scornful of older people (i.e. people with significant life experience) and sure that they have discovered new amazing truths that old fools can't see.

The easy conclusion is that there will probably never be a more disillusioned generation of people in American history than the generation of young whites who are voting for Obama. By the time they are in their middle age they will shake their heads sadly that they could have been so wrong.

[WDCRob]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

Mark_MN... I'm laughing at the notion that the US hasn't been a racially polarized nation for its first 400+ years.

Nothing brings people together and puts the 'United' in the United States like Slavery, Jim Crow and genocide of indigenous populations I guess.

You could still be right about the political balkanization, but all you're really describing is those 'other' populations getting their hands on instruments of power they've previously been kept away from.

[Guest]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

I've written into the editors on more than one occasion to point out that the videos featured prominently on the front page of iTulip gave the impression to newcomers like myself that this was a left leaning website. I was told that this was not the case. I replied that even if it wasn't the intent, the result would be to attract a high proportion of the "stick it to George Bush no matter what it does to the country" leftist crowd. In other words, it would result in populating itulip with those ignorant of real-world economics and elitists who feel themselves above the damage that an Obama administration would inflict on the regular population. I mean really, who cares about people who aren't economists and investors for a living, right?

A quote from above posts sums up that mindset:

"I'm outraged by the economic favoritism accorded the wealthy, and I would gladly lose some of my own money to see those criminals face justice . . . or at least be prevented from committing future theft. I'm hoping Obama will do that . . . ."

This being the same Obama who championed the $700B(or is it $3T?) bailout. Yeah, he sounds like he'll really tighten the government belt and avoid a hyperinflation. A real stand up guy not swayed by populism is he.

Make no mistake. George Bush was a complete failure as a president. I wrote in Ron Paul as my state will likely not go Obama, and if it does the race will be a landslide for him anyway. Both of these guys will be disasters as president, but with a Democratic congress at least McCain could do far less damage and does have a modicum of experience. If you had to make a nose-holding pragmatic vote, that would be it.

So congratulations iTulip. Maybe Obama will send over a box of red berets and Che Guevara t-shirts as a thank you. The percentage of tinfoil-hat posts has increased over time, so my opinion is you blew it if your intent was to educate anyone.

It looks like our chickens are coming home to roost. 60% obama vs under 20% McCain. Yeah, you sure did manage to avoid looking biased to the left there, E.J. and co! Congratulations, you may now get a link at the Huffington Post.

Consider this my first installment under the Fairness doctrine. : )

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

The sentiment that electing a half-black man...

Some of us will be casting our votes based on such considerations as the positions, experience, associations or moral character of the candidates, not their race.

The repeated insinuations by Obama and his supporters of racial bias in Obama's opponents is a sham, in my view, to distract from some other matters.

[bpr]

Re: iTulip 2008 Presidential Poll: Who are you voting for today?

i say to my fellow conservatives, if we didn't want a liberal elected maybe we should not have elected administrations that perused policies that blew up the economy.

I say to my fellow left-of-liberal kooks: Keep you hands off MM's gold while looting. He's a smart and reasonable fellow, and we'll need a few like him to create an economy.:rolleyes:

Seriously, though, 40 years of privatization, fiscal irresponsibility, social-issue BS, and ill-equipped, ill-intentioned white guys have failed. The failure is real, and it is in the mirror.