U.S. Presidential Election 2008

<chortles into beer>

He's a lovely, intelligent, well informed, compassionate, middle of the road, social democrat!

Funny exchange:

Social democrats are on the left side of the political spectrum, MT. There is more to the left than the far left niche you occupy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

yes but the issue Conqy is that you brand a whole broad spectrum of European political thought, encompassing all but the far right as "leftist". I daresay that might be what we are in the realm of the Texas political scene, but we are in Munich and don't you pretend to be both European and Ami?

It doesn't mean everyone's a raging Bolskevik, but mainstream European political thought is skewed to the left by anyone's standards - that's undeniable. As far as the users on the board are concerned, I'm a little surprised that the left-of-center crowd, which vastly outnumbers the right-of-center one, and which has often resorted to "bullying" and labeling those who have the nerve not to follow the "Guardian" school of thought (MT: I know you think it's right-wing, but trust me, it isn't), are getting their knickers in a twist because, they, in turn, are simply being categorized for the views they put forward in topics. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Fixed. The US has swung to the right a long way in the last 30 years. So has Europe, but not nearly as far. So a huge gap has opened up. US politics used to have a left of a sort, but the left is no longer visible in the mainstream and liberals are under siege.


How does calling someone a leftist improve the debate? It doesn't, yet it's the mildest of a string of attempted insults, put-downs and ridicule which Conkers throws out in practically every post. He has been called on it many times by many different posters. Is that bullying or fair comment?

Austin has quite a large liberal community, even by European standards.

The truth is anyone who uses the term 'leftist' and 'right wing' is a political neophyte who doesn't realize that a 2 dimensional scale is not an accurate indecator of political belief. Im far right wing on some issues and far left on others.

Excuse me? This is a little disappointing coming from someone like you. I suggest that you dust off some of your books and compare and contrast the respective political histories of the US and Europe over the past sixty years. Just as an example, France and Italy had hardcore Communist parties which peaked at 30% of the vote just twenty to thirty years ago. Sheesh.


The US has never had a left by European standards, as America has always been a [cringe, shudder] capitalist county. It's the left-wing parties in Europe, which went through a major identity crisis post-1989, which slowly started to adopt freemarket policies as part of their political platforms, all the while blabbering on about how evil capitalism is.


I've been posting on these fucking political threads for longer than you have and I've been insulted, fundamentally over a difference of opinion, one hundred times for every time that I've lashed out myself. To insinuate that Conquistador is single-handedly bullying everyone else is simply preposterous.


He puts a lot of time and thought into his posts and I have yet to see someone even try to debunk what he says - that would be a start.

actually it has. In the early 20th century the Socialist Party of America was as promising as the Labour Party in the UK. It had two members of congress, over 70 mayors and polled 6% in the presidential election of 1912 which is broadly comparable with prewar socialism in most European nations including Germany and the UK.

However, the SPA split in 1914 with WWI (same thing actually happened with UK Labour too) and the Russian revolution. But unlike the Labour pacifists, the leadership of the SPA was arrested on trumped up espionage charges and locked away for a decade followed by progressive offoicial suppression of the splintering socialist movement. At the same time during the 1920s, the Labour party in the UK flourished and had become the second party in parliament and then the governing party.

hahaha, feauxnews referred to Obama's wife as his baby moma.. Classy, I love it.

Awesome

I wish I got FOX over here. It's better than comedy central.

The "terrorist fist jab" is another recent good one. They're like a backass freshman journalism class of loud, uninformed, opinionated d-bags that was able to convince one of their rich dads to get them on the air.

yeah but supposedly Faux is a legitimate and balanced alternative to the rest of the world media controlled as it is by "leftists", commies and pinko faggots

Gadafy has just condemned Obama for being doisappointing over Israel

Maybe that will go some way to convince the rednecks that Obama isn't an islamic terrorist

I think the Texas dig is a poor attempt to link me with GWB. Not that it matters, but I am from NYC and have never been to Texas. What I call "leftist" runs the gamut from Marxists to social democrats such as yourself. No one who has been referred to by me as a leftist can be considered even moderately on the right by European standards. You aren't, Wheel isn't, MT definitely isn't. And so on.

If you are are going to make an issue of the fact that we are in Munich, perhaps than we can agree it's ridiculous to classify American politicians running in US elections by the European political spectrum.

As for my own political leanings in Germany, I support the FDP. No doubt you have heard some variant of "Amerikaner mit einem deutschen Pass" which is what people generally consider me. People I know back in the States think I am at least as much "European" as "American" if not more.


It's not generally a pejorative, rather a recognition that you and others inhabit the broad spectrum of the European left. Opinions and comments may be ridiculed (especially if they are Marxist) but no one is ridiculed for being a leftist- it's your life. Try to bear that in mind.


Hamas also recently yanked their endorsement of him.

Conquistador's leanings, if I may be so presumptuous as to infer, seem to be neo-conservative. In which case any "statist" policy is "leftist" to him. CDU & SPD here in Germany both accept the welfare state, and simply disagree about the direction for future changes.
The US political debate includes a significant minority that is hostile to the welfare state as an idea, the Republican free-market types and libertarians were part of the Republican coalition since Goldwater ran for president and Reagan was giving lectures about Hayek (Fred, not Selma). This segment was a more intellectual anti-communism, and became part of the neo-conservative movement of the 80s. (A neo-conservative is a liberal who's been mugged).
However, the neo-conservative label has become very devalued due to the association with Bush II's foreign policy, and the culture wars in the US that are part of the evangelical right's agenda (the coalition partner in the republican party). In any case, we are talking about a very small minority, whose influence is somewhat over-stated. They are found in small periodicals (Commentary, Encounter, National Review), and have been classified as an endangered species.
So please treat Conq with care, we need him as a museum exhibit to teach future generations!

Villager has done an good job of providing opiate to his fellow leftists in crudely attempting to demonizing me. He has indeed been more than a bit presumptuous in misrepresenting me as "neo-conservative". A large defense establishment is also a form of statism, and neo-conservatives, as the Wikipedia article indicates, aren't the ardent supporters of the free market Villager would have you believe they are. He has been intellectually lazy in lumping together disparate parts of the Republican coalition for whom he has previously indicated a strong dislike (as if they held monolithic views). This is a typical trick used on the campaign trail by Democrats, so let's see it for what it is.

I am in fact a member of no US political party and have been critical of both parties' fiscal policies. Furthermore, I have spoken of a desire to reduce military spending (while admitting it is easier said than done because of the complexity of defense and political realities) and have made it clear I did not support taking action in Iraq in 2003. I am also rather easy on the environment since I don't have a car and use public transportation and also walk and bike to get around. Sorry to disappoint those on the left salivating at the thought of being able to take out their anger right here on TT at these neoconservatives they love to hate. These are all points I have made before yet leftists still attempt their best at misrepresentation.

I am sure this Ivy Leaguer Villager will have some blithe excuse for his cognitive dissonance, but it's of no significance. There is apparently a desperate need on the part of Villager and eurovol and others to paint me as what are to them the worst possible things an American can be. Problem for them is, it doesn't stick with even the barest investigation.

But let's not forget a key reason why Villager attempts his little hatchet job- he is fuming that the inflation tax was somewhat stalled by tax cuts earlier this decade. Hiding being the guise of being a "deficit cutter" Villager advocates tax increases that are more onerous than a apparent restoration of Clinton-era rates. How is that you say? $40,000 in 1994 has considerably less purchasing power than $40,000 does today, thus if in both years you have an effective tax rate of 20% on that income in a progressive tax system you're actually being taxed at a higher rate. I have dared to praise the tax cuts enacted earlier this decade, thus I have run afoul of this man of the left who harbors a desire to "soak the rich". With his desire for tax rates on capital that predominated between the 1940s and 1970s, Villager is in fact the relic of a different era. Not even invenerate tax hiker Barack Obama wants to return to the rates of capital taxation that the US once had.

BTW, Villager, what year did your father come from Spain, and from which region?

Here is an interesting view on a much-discussed foreign policy proposal from Obama:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU0M...jBhMjBhMmFmYTk=

Poor Conky, the victim's victim.

Get the fuck over yourself, dude. Seriously. All of that was from your last post.

La La La --- Bush-Bush-bush-your bush- her bush, it's a bush, La la la--- Dick--Dick--Dick my Dick your Dick, our Dick, he vice president. How come no one tried to shoot them? I lost a bet with my sister, i really thought one of those two were going to hang their socks b4 their term was over.

Hahaha, why did that never occur to me before?!

I also love the Onion article about Obama's looking-off-into-future pose.

Surely not someone claiming to be THE political authority in two states whilst denying people yearning for citizenship any moral right to an opinion?

How many lies and misrepresentations can one find in this single sentence of MonksTown's? As the large number of posts you have made here on TT shows, no one is denying you the right to any opinion you wish to hold or express. Unlike eurovol, I don't claim to be a "political authority"- I am just one person expressing his opinion, which surely even the great MonksTown will admit I have a right to do.

As for the rejection of your citizenship application by the Bavarians, it has nothing to do with me. Whether or not it was refused for good cause or not (no way for any of us here on TT to know either way) it's your problem and you need to deal with it.

Keep on digging...

Silly me...my post was an attempt to paint you in a more sympathetic light. You see, I too had libertarian leaning, reading Hayek, Mises, and Ayn Rand, indoctrinating myself with the WSJ editorial page. But that was all a drug-induced haze many moons ago, ..ahh puberty. The problem with controlled substances is that they induce paranoia, all too evident in the case of Fox's O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Buchanan and the moniker Conquistador. Check for dilated pupils, constant sweating and megalomania. Soon after, the symptoms expand to slight or partial paralysis, cerebral dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, agitation, abnormal behavior, paranoia, terror, hallucinations, progressing to delirium...is Conq a candidate to become the next Unibomber?? Literate, but delusional, you have to start worrying when you believe everyone is to the left of you, and to the right are the tin-foil-hat bomb-shelter builders.

Obama’s offer of holding talks with Cuba is all for the good, the State department has been holding unofficial talks with Cuba for quite a while now, Fidel is on his last legs and American businessmen are eager to make a buck. This is not a partisan issue, the US opened up relations with Vietnam some time ago, and only the occasional demagogue questions the benefit of relations with China.

Obama's tax proposals are relatively straight-foward: lower taxes on the vanishing middle class:


Odd to think that Buffet and Soros both support Obama, are they also leftists?

As to your question about my father's date of departure: 1941, as war orphan from Galicia on a boat to Cuba. My grandfather's loyalty to the Republican army turned out badly. My father's career choice of being a journalist in Cuba was also problematic, other Trotskyite members of the family also found themselves exiled in the US. We dream of a proletariat revolution, and plan to use Obama as a spearhead

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

for heavensake man, he was making fun of you - that was all. And that's all any of us have been doing. The correct response is to dish it back. Nobody is "demonising" you matey (apart from yourself)

Must be something in the New York water. Hillary did the same thing in her concession speech.

anyway, lets get back to Obama versus McCain.

Anyone know what the polls are doing now that Obama is the candidate? Is there evidence that Clinton supporters are switching to McCain?

CNN's "poll of polls" has Obama at 48%, McCain at 43%. For whatever that's worth.

Less than 20% are saying that they will vote for McCain as of now. That number will go down over time, but there will always be those few that actually think Hillary won and that the "iron my shirt" event in New Hampshire wasn't staged by Camp Hillary to fan the flames of the feminist vote. Camille Paglia has a good article on all that recently in Salon.

Obama has a 9 point lead in the WSJ poll that was 3 points in March. That is more than Bush ever had over Kerry 4 years ago. The WSJ poll is being used as a historical poll of note to compare this year with. The dynamics this year are so different that polls may be all over the place as they figure out how to poll with the correct unloaded questions.

Supposedly via the poll of polls, Obama leads in every demographic (blue collar, Hispanics, women, blacks, etc) except white men with whom he is down by 20 points or so.

Fight the Smears

Obama dispels mistruths in a format even badbob can appreciate. No youtube videos, though. Sorry, bob. Next time, maybe.

Real Clear Politics averages multiple polls. At present, Obama has 46.8%, McCain has 42.5%. Of course, it's the electoral college that matters.

It's gonna be close.

good site, real clear politics has a projected electoral college advantage for BO (238) over JM (190) with 111 undecided
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma...bama_vs_mccain/
but what is this based on? some difficulty finding the source

especially interesting was the link to an article in The Nation
Supreme Court Judges Obama Right on Constitution



worthwhile reading, if you care at all about the US constitution

Didn't know what you were talking about there for a second.

It's about time. Obama launches "Fight the Smears" web page.
Link

Individual State polls are averaged to come to a RCP average value. Those are then scored based on closeness of the contest in that particular State. CNN is now doing the same thing with their EC poll. The SurveyUSA EC poll done back in March is still fairly accurate.

So there's an article about Obama's economic policy director: Jason Furman


However, if you google for his articles, you might be surprised by his 2005 article "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story"


look out for Black Friday sales for chemotherapy!

ED Hill taken off air as a FOX anchor for "terrorist fist jab" comment

hahahahahahahahah

They should take the whole of Fox off the air. From that article:


Sweet blubbering Jesus.

I mean there are right wing nutcases out there that will probably take that seriously (and probably quite a few others that take Fox seriously).

Perhaps the fans of McCain and Obama will tell us their opinions on the US Supreme Court ruling?
From what I have briefly read about it, seems the choices are: Charge the prisoners and try them in a regular court of law or set them free.

On June 4th, when I saw the picture of them doing this on CNN website it prompted me to send the message below to a friend of mine in Chicago:

"This is the pic from CNN this morning. I just don’t like the image of this clinched fist kissing. So ghetto!! "

So ghetto meaning that it just doesn't look like a class act.

This is his reply to me:

"I'll have to give it some thought. At first blush, it doesn't really bother me; however, given the fact that we are, strike that, that I am 9 years older than they are, maybe it's a generational thing. Any thoughts?"

P.S. Sorry for the bold, different color, and large print I was simply to lazy to rewrite it. I just cut and pasted it from the emails.

Every Dem and every human being everywhere applauds the SC for finally getting one right!

This Supreme Court ruling is a bunch of bullshit! In effect, it says that POW's (terrorists) on a foreign US military installation have the same rights as US citizens on US soil under the Constitution. Doesn't the Supreme Court realize that even US soldiers fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and not under the Constitution? That's why we have a separate system for the military. The terrorists aren't on US soil, they are on a military base, which is not sovereign US territory. Utter crap and just another example of liberal judges making up law from the bench instead of interpreting Constitutional Law, as is their role. Another defeat for us and victory for terrorism. God help us if NObama gets elected and appoints more liberal judges to the Supreme Court! The terrorists have even more rights than US soldiers! Crap! Just stupid!

It is interesting that the Supreme Court ruling gives constitutional rights to non US Citizens outside of the US.
It is indeed a document with a huge role for worldwide humanity. It rules as humans that we have the right to pursue happiness, bounds ahead of its time.

Perhaps the Founding Fathers could see into the future?
But they bequeathed the USA and the World something of great value.

Jesus - and I get accused of being "Anti-American".

Anyway, what's the option wanted by the pundits here?
Full trial in a standard US court with evidence, cross examination and the inadmissability of evidence gained through torture - or release?

What's next? Do our soldiers now have to read terrorists their Miranda Rights on the battlefield before asking any questions! BULLSHIT! The US Constitution makes no provisions for POW's. What you gonna do next, give them the right to vote for NObama too? No wonder eurovol supports it!

If they are POWs, then they should be treated as per the Geneva Convention.

If they are not POWs in a formal war situation the Supreme Court judges have been quite clear: Regular court or set them free.
I'm asking the supporters of the two main candidates which of those two ooptions they think should be followed.

The current system already permits review of individual cases by Military Tribunal.

The Supreme Court judges appear to have overturned that as far as I have read.

I have no desire to be blown out of the air at 30 00 feet or be bombed on the train on my way to work.
If people are dong such stuff, they belong in prison.
If convicted in a fair trial in an open court of law, where the evidence was not gained through torture and is laid openly on the table.

Or set them free.

Crying "bullshit" and raving about "liberal judges" doesn't cut the mustard.
Regular court of law? Or release?

And I pose the same question to the Democrats too.

A "regular court of law" would require that they be brought onto US soil. They are not entitled to a full court review. They aren't in the US...weren't arrested at a US Embassy etc. There a simply different laws for a US military installation, or a battlefield, than on the streets of New York. The problem with, say for example the Clinton Administration, is exactly that they wanted to treat terrorists as a law enforcement case. It is not a normal law enforcment case if it doesn't happen on US soil. US law enforcment agencies don't have jurisdiction overseas or outside the country and neither do US Courts. These are military matters and not for US Courts at any level. Prisoners at Gitmo, or anywhere else outside the US, should not be entitled to rights under the US Constitution. PERIOD. Did German POW's in Britain have access to British Courts in WWII...I think not - (even though they were on British soil). - Even less should people outside the US be entitled to access to US Courts.

And this is totally outside their competence, jurisdiction etc.

I am not asking whether or not they SHOULD be entitled to a trial in a US court on US soil.
The Supreme Court judges appear to have decided that they are. Period.

Should that happen or should they be released?

Obviously it will tak a few days for the ruling to be studied etc but I'd think that lawyers might well start filing for habeous corpus soon.
Surely the federal administration wouldn't ignore such a ruling?
It's the Constitution. Oder?