Talk Elections

Well-how about we get to know each other on a first-name basis.  Sometimes, when responding to what someone posted, It becomes agitating to have to refer to them by their wacko usernames.  So-  I'm Dave.

If you think this is a dumb idea, or you don't want to participate, by all means, you don't have to.

You're Dave eh? I don't like that. We already have a DAVE. The guy who runs this website, Dave Leip. So from now on, you'll be refered to as Dave #2. Hahaha! Just kidding.

I don't now how many other people will give their first names on this, but what the hell, I don't care. I'll give mine.

With me, it's no big puzzle, DemrepDAN. Which part of that do you think is my name? That's right, it's Dan.

On a side note, I added Demrep to the front of my name because at times, I don't consider myself a member of either party. I would call myself a Democratic-Republican, hence the name Dem Rep. But if I had to choose a political party, I would pick the Democratic Party without hesitation.

I'm Eric.

Well you all get three guesses what my name is??? :D :D ;)

I'm Don.

I'm usually called Al

I'm Chris.

I thought "demrep" meant Democratic Representative... :)

I'm Michaël.  Or you can call me Michael if the French trémas over the "e" bothers you when pronouncing my name ;)

My name is also Dan.  So, demrepdan, looks like you'll have to go by Dan #2, or, as my parents have tried to call me for 30 years now (to my chagrin) Danny.  Daniel is also available, but I was never fond of that one either.  How about Danforth?  It seemed to work OK for Quayle.

Danforth was his name though. Well, middle name. He went by the name Dan, which gave many people the allusion that his name was Daniel.

I don't think too much confusion will come of this, since there are currently only TWO Dan's on the board. However, if another Dan shows up, we'll have to kick him out of the forums ;)

I also don't really like the name, Danny, even though my closest family members call me that. But, I don't have too much of a problem being called Danny, especially if its by my friends. Which I hope all of you on this forum are :)  However, I think there are some of you who are out to get me ::) or maybe I'm just.......paranoid.

Christopher Michael's real name is: Michael or Mike. I sure would like to meet you face to face Nym90 or Eric, I'd love to talk politics with you. We agree on a lot, and yet we disagree just the same on many issues, like a Howard Dean Presidency that you tout.

After my third guess, I still don't get it.

sure, it did. I suppose though, that you know how to spell "POTATO[E]?"

YES, we are friends, friend. My AOL screen name is micma9. Feel free to add me to your Buddy List. That goes for everyone, Republican or Democrat. I am of a dying breed, a Centrist.

Call me Reuben (my middle name), and I have a single, uniform ideology: I'm a liberal. Let me explain:

Social issues: Here I am often a liberal as dems use the word. I support gun control, am pro-choice, pro-gay rights (am still not sure about marriage, would support civil unions), do not like conservative commentators like O'Reilly saying Christianity is inherent to what America is. The issue I most disagree with dems is this category is Affirmative Action, which I oppose on liberal grounds- sacrifices the equal rights of individuals to the equal rights of arbitrary racial groupings. I always oppose race in politics.

Economic Issues: I'm a traditional liberal capitalist. As John Locke, the original liberal, said, the government is best that governs least. Nowhere is this more true than in economics. Economic theories of socialism are just a carryover of the ancien regime idea of Father State.

Foreign Policy: My single most important and most liberal issue. I am a radical Wilsonian. All mankind is created equal, and no Citizen of Freedom can rest until all humanity is free. Anyone who supports a Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Arafat, etc., is an enemy of democracy, a racist, and a traitor to all mankind.

A radical Wilsonian? President Wilson's foreign policy blunders with his League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles gave rise to Hitler. The treaty was way to harsh on Germany, and it hurt the working classes. Who did they start listening to? The platform that gave rise to one of History's most notorious madmen, Adolph Hitler. I recommend that you read the book "Wilson's Ghost,"  coauthored by Robert S. McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy. It was required reading for my  Bachelor's in Political Science, the course was called: "War and Peace in the 21st Century."

A liberal Republican? I thought you were all dead...

Most GOPers are liberal in at least some of the ways I describe. As for the status quo dinosaurs who support tyranny and terrorism, they might as well get out of the party, we have no use for 'em. (Trade you Chafee for Zell!)

Wilson's fourteen points were meant to establish a worldwide system of democracy with malice toward none. Wouln't ya know it? The French stabbed us all in the back.

(Wilson made some big mistakes, but he was right in pinciple. My favorite thinker in the world today is Clinton's first CIA director, Jim Woolsey. Check out his ideas at http://www.freedomhouse.org , or http://www.defenddemocracy.com

Wait a minute now! The French would never stab us in the back!

Not the social stuff, where I know I'm closer to the left, but most GOP are liberal in the economic and foreign policy sense I describe.

I am using the actual definition of liberal (Locke-Montesqieu-Burke-Pitt-Jefferson), not the cockamamy socialist-defense of tyrants junk.

I love you!!!:)

Finally, someone uses the political labels correctly! Liberal originates from the word for free! You almost made me believe that I'm a republican myself!

Oh, and my name is Gustaf (I wont be as arrogant as Ryan since I'm not sure as to whether you would be familiar with Swedish first names:))

That is great! Tell me more! Wherefrom in Sweden, do you have any Swedish names left?

And then, think about the odds of two people with a Swedish ancestry ending up in the same AMERICAN forum!

I live just east of Stockholm, but my mother's family comes from Dalarna, so they could well be close to Kopparberg. Sweden is a small country, but maybe not THAT small. Still, I suppose it is possible, we could check it out if you want to :)!

This means that you could think of me as your grandfather!:) (which would be kind of weird though...)

Anyway, this was an unexpected pleasure to say the least!!

I'm Jay

I don't think it's fair to lump Arafat with Hussein, Hitler, and Stalin.

True, Arafat is a murderer, but nowhere near the proportions of Stalin, Hussein,  and Hitler.

Arafat would be a Hitler if he was that powerful. As it is, he has spent his entire life killing, killing, killing, as much as and wherever possible.

MiamiU, you clearly have noit ever met victims of homicide bombers, and thise who have lost loved ones from these attacks. I have. Arafat is the Haman of our days, and will not stop until he wipes out the Jewish peope from the face of the Earth. I fully realize that many Dems, notably Teds Turner and Kennedy, are supportive of these plans. But, thank G-d, we have a fantastic president who will not allow the Chosen People to be thrown into the sea.

Every time I hear people support Arafat, I have to go watch the opening credits of Exodus, the music and the flame together basically sum up our history w/o words, and I know G-d will not allow our annihilation. After all, he let us live this long against all the odds. And in the end, Arafat will pass like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein, alll of who he is fully as bad as.

I have always wondered why dems forgave Arafat for having Bobby Kennedy killed for being friendly to Israel. Not only that, but now are closer to Sirhan Sirhan than Kennedy on MidEast "peace". Ah, well. They're hopeless. Just look at Dean. Bush will break 50% of the Jewish vote- mark my words. I know very liberal Jewish people who plan to vote for Bush, because Dean would be our doom. He would sit and watch the cattlecars bearing us to our final destinations in silence.

If what you're fearing is another HOLOCAUST, it's not going to play out that way. GOD chose you, HIS children, Israel out of many nations. Yes, Hitler was beyond monster. But, as long as there are Christian people like me that care about your plight and the plight of the Jewish people everywhere, we won't stand by and let that happen again. Not when I'm President. I guarantee you that. I don't know if we have lifted the ban on assassinating foreign leaders/heads of state.  But, If we have done that,  Arafat's fate is sealed.

How am I supporting Arafat?  I jsut said he wasn't a Hitler or a stalin or a hussein.  Stop blowing things out of proportion.
My father's side of the family is Jewish, they are liberlas and most of them support Dean in the primary.  Dean would take around 60% of the Jewish vote.  Most Jews don't only vote on what they think is best for Israel.

There is a certain amount of irony here.  I've heard Arabs refer to Sharon in the same manner.  I don't think either characterization is correct.


1) The suffering of all people is equal.  A murdered Muslim, a murdered Jew, a murdered Christian, and a murdered Atheist are all equal.

2) I think you are being very blind and very ridiculous if you believe that the majority of leading Democrats support a plan which "wipes out the Jewish peope from the face of the Earth. "

Ok, now you are way out there.  In one breath you insist that Ted Kennedy wants all Jews eliminated from the face of the Earth and in the next you suggest that Arafat had his brother (and idol) murdered.  You are going way beyond extremist.

I'm no Dean supporter, but your characterization of him is unfair and is bogus.  It stems from a statement he made in which he basically suggested that America should listen to both sides of the Israeli-Arab argument.  Of course we're going to favor Israel, but when even elite Israeli commandos are questioning some of that nation's actions shouldn't we pay attention?

Frankly I think the Palestinians need new leadership.  Under Arafat they cannot achieve peace.  They must begin policing themselves and restrict the maniacs who blow themselves up.  The Israelis, however, need to put a halt to actions like the construction of the "Great Wall of Israel".

Just bumpin' this thing up so I can show M the exit polls on 11/2/04.

I've just experienced the frisson of horror that one would experience when they have the displeasure of reading M's post. It shows the ghastly biases symptomatic of the Zionist community. Now, these people really experienced genocide. They were unfairly brutalized by Hitler during the Holocaust. Considering that chilling experience, it would seem to me that they, of all people, would show some responsibility in analogizing a human rights crime to those of Hitler. But they don't. They constantly invoke the motif of Nazism to apply to Arafat. I'd like to stand here resolutely and say it's just plain wrong. Perhaps you should look at the reason why these people hate you. You stole their land from them. Never auspicious. You have starved and maltreated them in their own country. Never a good way to get off on the right foot. Now you plan to fob them off with a miniscule parcel of land and segregate them using a wall eerily resembling the ghettos Eastern European Jews were confined to just sixty years ago. You've experienced this before, and should have some pangs in your conscience. But I suppose Hannah Arendt's argument about the banality of evil, first applied to Adolf Eichmann, is at hand here. In the collective anti-Arab hysteria, many Israelis are acting as cogs in a vast mechanism to suppress Palestinian rights. I will not forget this, and my foreign policy as president will always hold the idea of Zionism as a form of racism firmly at the forefront. I anticipate the usual suspects pontificating about how this is God's will, with their slew of citations showing how this is the unfolding of Biblical destiny, but I would retort that it serves little purpose to serve the Kingdom of God if it makes for Hell on earth. I will never support Israel, because there is just too much for people of goodwill to tolerate.

Do the first two guesses count?

Stanton.

Bush has created a new Wilsonianism. He's making the world safe for the US and its interests-- which mostly overlaps with what Wilson said.  I'm curious how this whole Iraq controversy would have gone had Bush used Christopher Hitchens' arguments for regime change in Iraq through war.

I'm an advocate for a League of Democracies, like Jonah Goldberg has written about. Boot out the UN and move in the LOD. There's already the Community of Democracies, so there's a precedent for it.

It's a great way to wedge Democrats. All Republicans would support leaving the UN for something more representative of our interests.  Many Democrats frustrated with the UN's inability to act-- Howard Dean in 1995 declared the UN a failure in the face of the need for action in Kosovo-- would go along, too.  Bush would have to convince the UK to go along, too. Once you had that, I think we could move forward.

I agree with Woolsey's belief that we are in World War IV whether we call it that or not. World Wars are about defending civilizations.  We have two sides represented by groups of nations. I don't think Americans really grasp what we are in.

Have you met the Swedish Bikini Team?

The only difference is that Arafat doesn't have the means. The others did.

Yep. Jews today have a thread-bare connection to Israel. They are total social and economic liberals and vote based on that.  

You'll need to bump this thread every week if that's your timeframe.

Ehh...and what would that be exactly??? Not to disappoint you, but it sounds like something which is more or less made up...

On Wilson, btw, he was back-stabbed by his own congress, just so you remember that...

Not really,  every 2 or 3 weeks.

My name Jeff