Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 25, 2017, 06:34:47 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 353 354 355 356 357 [358] 359 360 361 362 363 ... 471
8926  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Do You Agree with this Statement? on: January 22, 2008, 07:19:28 pm
Agree 100% If I could have a different father to what JFK had.
8927  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Gully Foyle vs. John McCain on: January 22, 2008, 02:35:40 pm
Given that I am now a "Whiny Joe Lieberman Clone" shouldn't we be running mates? I mean in your universe (ie. the one only you live in) there is absolutely no difference between McCain and me.
8928  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: why is incest wrong? on: January 22, 2008, 02:32:56 pm
Well Tweed, no-one is told in school "Incest is wrong". Anyway Education is more subtle than that. But given that most school system in Ireland (and I imagine from what I have read, the US) pretend sex does not exist until you are 16 and half-pregnant\nearly a father it is not an issue.

I also doubt that believing Incest is wrong is the most irrational thing you believe.

As for an actual answer, That's beyond me. Though as I said Incest is often associated with Rural hicks - perhaps those with more time, less brain and less potential mates than someone living in a city or a massive extension to a city like LI.

I also doubt that 'nature' has anything to do with. The second law of internet debating (the first being Godwin o\c) is that when people say "Human Nature" they mean "Stuff which seems normal to me".
8929  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: whatever happened to the gene mccarthy/rfk voters? on: January 22, 2008, 02:23:44 pm
Quote
Your first point about McCarthy receiving support from pro-war Democrats is true, but only in the very, very early stages of the campaign, primarily in New Hampshire and Wisconsin before LBJ dropped out.

Which is where he ran strongest (mostly). O\c neither state was exactly a stronghold of "hippieland" or the supposed Educated Elite.

Out of curiosity, would it be possible to get a map of the 1968 D California primary between RFK and McCarthy. I think that would be interesting.

Quote
Also, I don't think you could really characterize them as "McCarthy Supporters" because they never really supported him.  Most of them probably ended up supporting Richard Nixon in the general election, with some Southerners going to Wallace and a few staying with Humphrey.

I agree. But it was significant enough to give him a stronger vote and showed how utterly dead the LBJ presidency was.

Quote
Blue collar support for McCarthy was limited at best, at least until RFK jumped in and took away pretty much all the blue collar support.

RFK: Blue Collar? Not really - It was mainly Humphrey who got the blue collar support (at least in 1972.. I admit I don't know too much detail about the 68' primaries as I do about the 72' ones.). RFK was the candidate of Minorities, Catholics and the more moderate liberal intellectuals.

I do know that McGovern actually did do fairly well in Blue Collar areas in the 72' primaries; especially at the start of the campaign before Humphrey came in strong and the Democratic establishment much less determined to stop him winning.

As for McCarthy, well, who do you think voted for him in Minnesota? (Though I admit that voting for senator and voting for president are two different things..)

Quote
Of course, McCarthy enjoyed slightly more support among rural whites, but still nothing like he enjoyed among the educated elite.

Even that support was tenuous in many cases.

Quote
The college students who would never support the Democrat at all were a lot smaller than people think, IMHO.  These were mainly people like the "Yippies" and some of the more radical members of "SDS," along with black nationalist movements like the Black Panther Party and SNCC (or what would become the radical SNCC if they had not segregated already, I can't really remember).

They were small (though not THAT small; significant enough that they became in many ways the faces of the student movement.) but fairly important. After the Riots in Chicago Abbie Hoffman made a prediction that his group (the Yippies - he was their leader) had just elected Richard Nixon. Given how close it was in the very end seems to indicate that there was some truth in it.

After all even at its peak what is known as "the Student movement" made up what... 1% of the population. If even that. And those groups like the yippies were a fraction of that. Yet they had enomorous cultural significance (Though more in Music than in Politics o\c) . The fact that this is the 40th Anniversary of 1968 and the students, et al are still being talked about just shows this.

Quote
Contrary to popular belief, at the time the Chicago protests were happening, most Americans strongly, strongly disapproved of the actions of the protesters.  In fact, most though the police exercised the right amount of brutality or were not brutal enough.

I would believe that, but it wasn't just protestors Daly's crew were attacking - often passing civilians aswell.

Quote
Also, the effect of causing people to stay home because of the riots in Chicago is minimal, with something like only 1% of Democrats refusing to vote because of what happened outside (and inside) the convention.  (However, you should note that the overall effect on the race from Chicago should not be pushed aside.)

It gave the impression that the party was in chaos and falling rapidly apart. For some Democratic conservatives it seemed to show how the youth movement was trying to take over the party (Lol: But many believed that..) I can't claim with certainly that if not for Chicago Humphrey would have won.. but it was surely a factor and remember it was really, really close.

Quote
Your final point about McGovern not being an elitist is one I have to agree with.  In 1968, McGovern actually attempted to stand-in for RFK at the convention, receiving a I believe a little under 200 delegates.  However, just because he wasn't elitist doesn't mean CREEP didn't try to paint him as one.

Yes. Though to be honest it wasn't hard in 1972 - especially spouting anti-Vietnam views; which often were in the student movement and the hippies and etc a strong resentment of the military. They would claim that is because they were pacifists but that's not how most Americans saw it.
8930  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which cities/towns/villages/suburbs did you live in? on: January 22, 2008, 02:06:20 pm
I've lived in the same house since circa August 1986. February 1990.
8931  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: whatever happened to the gene mccarthy/rfk voters? on: January 22, 2008, 08:06:17 am
^^^ That's Vaguely right. Though McCarthy at the start of campaign got support from people who wanted to escalate the war, not end it. That's because he acted as an "opposition to LBJ" weather vain. Also there was a decent amount of blue collar support for McCarthy in the Primary as there would be for McGovern four years later - especially in areas with weaker unions.. but that dissapated hard in the general of 1972, probably due to "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion". Of course there was always an element of hardcore in the Student movement who would never support a presidential candidate for the Democrats.. these were the people at Chicago and probably make up a good deal of ageing hippies themselves.

Also I don't really see McGovern as an elitist... the people he was (unfairly) associated with though...

8932  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: why is incest wrong? on: January 22, 2008, 07:41:54 am
Society views incest is wrong because the vast majority of people have the natural human instinct to avoid incest. You'll find most higher animals also have similar instincts.

Only if there is a wide selection of potential mates about. Which isn't\wasn't true in many societies. And even then your claim is dubious...

Well, I meant direct siblings and parents - cousin marriages have been rather common throughout history for the reason you stated above. Sibling/Parental incest is generally considered disgusting and therefore "wrong" due to our instincts, but I'd say the stigma against cousin incest is mainly a cultural phenomenon.

Usually in most societies that is the case though in some Sister-Brother marriages aren't totally unheard of. Never heard of a society where relations between a Mother and Son were not totally taboo.

Of course then there is sexual abuse; which just adds to the notion that the stigma is mainly societal and 'natural' (whatever that is.)
8933  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: why is incest wrong? on: January 22, 2008, 07:32:56 am
Society views incest is wrong because the vast majority of people have the natural human instinct to avoid incest. You'll find most higher animals also have similar instincts.

Only if there is a wide selection of potential mates about. Which isn't\wasn't true in many societies. And even then your claim is dubious... It is 'wrong' because it represents "Closedness" to the world. It's interesting to note most of things the society considers Paraphilias Incest is the only one isn't considered related to Urban Bohemians but rather Rednecks.

* - If you want to be really technically, every single sexual relationship is incentous as every human being is related via the same Mother going back when Homo Sapiens were a minor tribe of hominids in the Sands of East Africa.
8934  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What Weimar Republic party would the preceding poster best fit in? on: January 21, 2008, 08:00:19 pm
SDP.
8935  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which parts of the Contract with America would you support? on: January 21, 2008, 07:57:01 pm
Only 10. Though a bit unsure on 5. Dumb name though.
8936  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How did your ancestors vote? on: January 21, 2008, 07:55:10 pm
Unionist.
8937  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: OK, now no question, I'd vote for Hillary in the general, no reservations on: January 21, 2008, 07:53:47 pm
For a start at present the Trend is towards increasing turnout. I suspect alot of this has to do with emotions towards Bush rather than anything really substantial. When turnout fell below 50% for the first time ever in a Presidential race in 1996 there was alot of typical meaningless soul-searching about "American Democracy" Whatever that is - The simple fact that both candidates in a way benefited from the low turnout (Clinton got re-elected while with high turnouts that would be more dubious as you get alot of independents while Dole didn't get destroyed as some predicted which might have happened if it weren't for the perception of it being a pointless and finished race.) was ignored.

Also between 2000 and 2004 there was a clear attempt by some Democrats to court Nader voters (many of whom are quite worth hating..) which clearly would not have happened if 3% of voters in 2000 didn't go for Nader (and o\c exaggerated by the whole "close Election" thing.)

Quote
I don't doubt that 50% VAP turnout is no reason for them to worry, but perhaps 15% or 10% or 5% would be.  either the trend will accelerate, and we'll see, or it won't and we won't.

For it to reach that levels you would have make voting an elitist exercise away from the notion of "Civil duty" in the first place - and for that to happen within the present course of events (which is unthinkable..) would probably mean your revolution has already started.

But whither Revolution?

Quote
What you don't appear to understand, I don't understand why you don't understand, is that there is no reason for the political establishment to worry about low turnouts. Turnout in mid-term elections, which unlike most other countries matter a hell of a lot in the U.S, is comical (or tragic; depends on your perspective) and has been for years.

Less true (not but entirely untrue) btw in countries which have a more proportional electoral system.

Quote
Apathy is not a Revolutionary stance.

Essentially true - and Apathy is the reason most people don't vote. I think there is a sense even among non-voters that 'the system' works, but they don't quite the people running it. Which is different from you want Tweed.

Btw BRTD from what I know Nader ain't going to run. I *think* Camejo or possibly Medea Benjamin might (as the Greens nominee.. unless they choose McKinney. Which I really hope they don't.)
8938  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Election Night 2008 on: January 21, 2008, 07:34:52 pm
Clinton/Richardson vs. McCain/Sanford

Clinton 319, McCain 219

Clinton would not win Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, or West Virginia against McCain. Period. It would also take a small miracle for her to best McCain in Virginia.

Every single poll since forever has shown Clinton crushing every single opponent in Arkansas. And the only WV poll realesed so far showed the Ds well ahead and it was a partizan Republican poll.

Things change with different candidates - Bill Clinton did better in Louisana than in Vermont in 1996 for instance.
8939  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Question for you Hillary hating Democrats on: January 21, 2008, 07:27:48 pm
Absolutely not. I would probably just stay home.

Don't - vote Green or Libertarian or Peace & Freedom or whatever... Staying at home gives even more reason for the political establishment to ignore people like you.

Someone gets it! Smiley

I'm not sure whether that is a good thing or not.

The Thing I've probably learnt the most from this forum is despite two monolithic parties US politics is probably more fractured than anywhere else in the western world outside of France. Not that that's bad either.
8940  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: President Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton on: January 21, 2008, 02:56:01 pm
JSM = ehh.. John Sidney McCain.

Why I am comparing Mill to McCain? Mill may have been a snob but compared to McCain.. he's Jesus.

8941  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Who would you rather have as President? on: January 21, 2008, 02:54:47 pm
I'll take HIV over the Bubonic Plague, thank you very much. ie McCain.

Pretty Much.

Also I can't help when I look at Romney to want to punch him in the face. Repeatedly. If he wins, the idea that the US is a meritocracy (which it clearly isn't but anyway..) is dead.
8942  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: President Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton on: January 21, 2008, 02:40:20 pm
I'm quite surprised by AoD's sig. In saying that it is not surprising given that choosing between Clinton and McCain is like choosing which one of your arms you would least like to have cut off.

At least JSM does not have that the whole "House of Clinton" thing.

Anyone who supports McCain should never criticize the Democrats and call them no different from the Republicans...ever.

I don't support McCain. Merely pointing out one reason why someone would.

Btw, I agree with you.
8943  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: President Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton on: January 21, 2008, 02:37:07 pm
I'm quite surprised by AoD's sig. In saying that it is not surprising given that choosing between Clinton and McCain is like choosing which one of your arms you would least like to have cut off.

At least JSM does not have that the whole "House of Clinton" thing.
8944  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: What's the last movie you've seen? on: January 21, 2008, 02:19:53 pm
Quote
Raging Bull at #4 is f**king ridiculous, no question.

Also ridiculous: Doctor Zhivago is off.

The Original AFI List was such a joke I can't imagine people care that much. The real purpose in this exercise is imo to expunge the memory of that awful list (Forrest Gump but no Blade Runner... lol)

EDIT: Having looked at it via wikipedia I claim that the new list is an even bigger joke. Getting rid of The Manchurian Candidate and The Third Man (even if I do think it's a little overrated) for the likes of Spartacus, The Sixth Sense, A Night at the Opera, All The President's Men, Lord of the Rings and most unbelievably of all Titanic!!!. (And still keep Forrest Gump

Okay they added in Blade Runner, but where's Paths of Glory, Kiss Me Deadly, Rebecca, Days of Heaven At least one Movie by Lynch and Cronenberg, Once Upon a time in the West or Once Upon a time in America - if either of the latter two count, to give more deserving examples.

In short, AFI list = Pseudo-Populist humbug for the Pseudo-sophiscated crowd.
8945  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: whatever happened to the gene mccarthy/rfk voters? on: January 21, 2008, 02:08:03 pm
This is... such... a strange thread for many reasons. The main one being that most of the hippies\yippies\SDSers were voters in the first place. Perhaps alot people influenced by them were - especially for McCarthy, but they never made up even a huge proportion of the population.

Though as Tom Wolfe pointed out the whole 60s counter culture was partially driven by money in the first place. Which is why the Oil Crisis killed it, not Altamont.
8946  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: Question for you Hillary hating Democrats on: January 21, 2008, 01:59:41 pm
Absolutely not. I would probably just stay home.

Don't - vote Green or Libertarian or Peace & Freedom or whatever... Staying at home gives even more reason for the political establishment to ignore people like you.
8947  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Israel on: January 20, 2008, 09:34:23 pm
To be honest, I can't think of a good reason, it's just the far-right pushing their imperialist goals.
And what has made you come to that conclusion?

The boundaries of Isreal are nowhere near where they were originally supposed to be.

As Tory said that could mean anything. The original Zionists actually wanted a state which would iirc stretch as far as the Euphrates - In modern day Iraq.

Why? Jews are no longer persecuted anywhere in the West.

In fact, that brings up an interesting question: why would anyone want to move to Israel?

We are talking about the Early Zionists here. And the area stretching from the Euphrates is the historic "Abrahamic" Israel or Canaan iirc. Abraham coming from Ur in Mesopotamia itself iirc.
8948  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: why bother caring? on: January 20, 2008, 09:32:31 pm
No; he's targetting you because your original statement defied reality.

Really?  No, not at all.  He does this all the time.  And by the way, low-income Americans are more likely to stay home from the polls so rich does not equal apathetic.  Reality says rich people care more and vote more while poor people care less and vote less.  Obviously those who care less don't feel as affected or else they would care more.

All that shows is that the poorer feel more disconnected by the political system. Which should be a shock to... absolutely no-one.

And of course levels of voting how nothing to do with 'apathy'. I'd say the Anarchistic inclined community activist is much less apathetic than silly rich people with trivial lives who live in places like Putnam County, NY and always vote Republican to a tee. As that is what you do in Putnam.
8949  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Israel on: January 20, 2008, 09:19:15 pm
To be honest, I can't think of a good reason, it's just the far-right pushing their imperialist goals.
And what has made you come to that conclusion?

The boundaries of Isreal are nowhere near where they were originally supposed to be.

As Tory said that could mean anything. The original Zionists actually wanted a state which would iirc stretch as far as the Euphrates - In modern day Iraq.
8950  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re: why bother caring? on: January 20, 2008, 09:17:34 pm
Very funny, kid. This is satire, right? Right?

And you continue to ignore my basic point. Why?

If only this type of disagreement was satirical...

Actually, your "basic point" didn't exist until you decided to change your post from another sad attack to a legitimate point.  My point was quite clear however: Your accusations are all the same and not based on any facts, just animosity towards those more fortunate than you and are thus moot.  Your "arguements" really mean nothing to me because I can see right through all your posts and know you are only targetting me for my social status.

No; he's targetting you because your original statement defied reality.
Pages: 1 ... 353 354 355 356 357 [358] 359 360 361 362 363 ... 471


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines