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

[mikedev10]

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

no ron paul and bar pissed him off. baldwin for me!

[neverwin]

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

Obama


Cynicism towards government is the cornerstone of the conservative party. The embezzlement, cronyism, war-profiteering, lobbying, bank handouts, income inequality, incompetence, corporate pandering and environmental destruction have all been carried out in the name of conservatives "proving" that government can't and won't work. What a strategy where sabotage and failure justifies the criminal acts of tax dollar siphoning by those who are responsible for the sabotage and failure itself. Death to the "free" market.

[labasta]

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.

I had never thought of that. Very insightful post. Thanks.

[Jeff]

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

Obama.

Hailing unregulated free markets as ideal, and government as the problem has been blown to hell by the multi-trillion dollar bailout. Once the businesses came begging and got their billions and AIG was socialized at its request, you can no longer rail against welfare for poor people or socialized medicine. This action has been an outright blatant bailout of people making many millions of dollars by manipulating markets.

As Eric has pointed out, he and I made our money by working hard to create products and jobs that meant something, not playing Keno on Wall Street. Nobody has the moral authority to complain about some immigrant kid getting a free education, or wasting money giving poor kids breakfast after this huge diversion of taxpayer money to the already extremely wealthy.

Higher taxes will disincentivize hedge fund managers to work hard? Give me a break.

I want to see two things from an Obama administration; a new WPA (infrastrucure, clean energy, chopping up McMansions into affordable housing) and a new Manhattan Project (alternative energy). Say we put half a trillion in each. Think we'd get anywhere? Beats the hell out of paying for rapacious bonuses on Wall Street and sending trillions overseas for oil.

Just to avoid the Socialist label here, I've started many companies, created thousands of jobs and paid millions in taxes by my mid thirties. And I'm a Democrat, and I vote.

I have no sympathy for the Ron Paul voters and non-voters who just seem to wish everything was the way they want it. It's called Democracy. et used to it.

[Mn_Mark]

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

Nobody has the moral authority to complain about some immigrant kid getting a free education, or wasting money giving poor kids breakfast after this huge diversion of taxpayer money to the already extremely wealthy.

Wrong. I have the moral authority to complain about that. I opposed the bailout. I oppose all government intervention in the normal adjustments of the free market. I favor enough regulation to protect people's property rights and to prohibit fraud. But it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that this crash is the result of too little government. This massive problem was made possible by government intervention.

Remember too that the bailout bill was passed mainly by Democrats. The Republicans, in fact, defeated it the first time it came up. That is not to defend the Republicans in the administration who've done the bailing out, but a Democratic adminstration would have done exactly the same thing. The problem is the Keynesian worldview that central government planning and intervention can prevent bad things from happening or make them less bad. And the Democrats and the Republicans are both largely Keynesians. At least Bush is.

Just to avoid the Socialist label here, I've started many companies, created thousands of jobs and paid millions in taxes by my mid thirtgies.

It's great that you've started companies and created jobs and paid taxes. But that doesn't mean you're not a socialist. No one said socialists don't pay taxes.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

And the Democrats and the Republicans are both largely Keynesians. At least Bush is.

In 1971, Richard Nixon uttered the famous phrase "We are all Keynesians Now. "

[PHS]

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

If President Bush was still wondering what his legacy will be in the eyes of the American public...tonight's elections should make it clear. However, my impression of leaders, in many fields, is we tend to look at our careers with rose-colored glasses...so maybe not.

I also think that Obama will try to lead from the center more than people (from both sides) seem to believe. I'm glad that he will win and I hope the country gives him a chance.

[Raz]

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

I have no sympathy for the Ron Paul voters and non-voters who just seem to wish everything was the way they want it. It's called Democracy. et used to it.

And I have less than zero sympathy for arrogant asses such as yourself.
The reason I voted for Chuck Baldwin was because he represented both my economic views and the moral strictures under which I have chosen to live my life. I suppose you voted for Obama for the same reasons. If so, then my next statement will most likely be lost on anyone such as yourself.
Mr. Obama has taken every opportunity throughout his political career to sanction and subsidize the mass-murder of the most innocent and helpless Americans. Procured abortion is not enough for him so he voted at every opportunity to support the "right" of open infanticide.

So you made a lot of money and provided a lot of jobs - and that is suppose to convey upon you the right to belittle others who don't vote the way you think they should? You make me want to puke.

[DemonD]

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

I voted for Obama.

I actually gave a fair shake to all the candidates. Baldwin and Barr are both to the right of W. Yes that's right - they are more socially conservative than bush. No thanks.

Nader and McKinney are not qualified and their policies would also be ruinous on many levels.

When you look at it, Obama and McCain aren't too far off, but Obama's platforms are more socially libertarian and his economic policies make more sense than all the candidates. While I cheer the fact that we have elected a non-white male, it had no bearing on my vote. I do feel pride in my country that at least for one election, the extreme racism of the past has been mostly discarded.

[bpr]

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

While I cheer the fact that we have elected a non-white male, it had no bearing on my vote. I do feel pride in my country that at least for one election, the extreme racism of the past has been mostly discarded.

I concur. I have to admit that I am quite moved by the emotion shown by minorities, who have largely held our leaders in disdain for decades, rightly so. Obama makes the myth real for tens of millions of disenfranchised Americans. Every kid hears the words, "You can grow up to be president," but if you're not a white male it must sound hollow once you learn more about history.

His background — single mother, mixed race, strong family, multiple homelands — can only be a good thing for America.

Imagine all the single black mothers out there who can now tell their sons, truthfully, that they can one day be elected to be President of the United States.

All of this is just in addition to the fact that he was the best candidate for the job at the end of the day.

Disclosure: If the ballot was different I'd have voted white man with views I support (Kucinich) first; or white female personally connected to my family (Clinton) second. Obama is more than adequate as a third pick, and in the long haul may lead us best. Godspeed.

P.S. Did you see McCain's concession speech? It was classic McCain, circa 2000. The man showed his true colors for the first time in months. A landmark speech by a great American servant. His humility made me appreciate Obama's win even more, and renewed an old respect I had for McCain. While I may disagree with him, he is a man of mettle. And he should've won in 2000.

[Shakespear]

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

Not sure what Obama will do but my hope is that it will be a lot better than what Bush has done. At least I think the message he will be sending are more along the lines "Lets talk even if we disagree" instead of "Will bomb you since we disagree".

[hellstan]

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

Not being American, but still feeling the outrage of Florida / Supreme Court / Banana President 2000, I would proudly vote for Barack Obama. Seen from
Europe, I can guarantee the world envy you for having elected such a man.

[hellstan]

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

No options for those of us who are not voting for Socialist1 or Socialist2?

Nathan, please, not that kind of rhetoric. Please open a good dictionary or encyclopędia and do learn some word's meaning. ;)

[*T*]

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

Nathan, please, not that kind of rhetoric. Please open a good dictionary or encyclopędia and do learn some word's meaning. ;)

Hellstan, as I'm sure you know, 'socialist' and 'liberal' have completely different meanings to USicans vs. those of us in the rest of the world. I have had this discussion before and it is an exercise in futility

[hellstan]

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

Hellstan, as I'm sure you know, 'socialist' and 'liberal' have completely different meanings to USicans vs. those of us in the rest of the world. I have had this discussion before and it is an exercise in futility

Oh yes, sure, so, let me catch up a bit.

Mmh, last time I checked, the USicans of my entourage
don't use the "socialist" that way, but only the normal way.
Let me rephrase your answer, if you allow me :
"Hellstan, as I'm sure you know, 'socialist' and 'liberal' have completely different meanings to right wing and extreme-right wing USicans vs. those of us in the rest of the world."

For those, we have a nickname : "newts". Cute, isn't it.