Powell endorses Obama

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

The biggest problem I have with scrapping it is that it makes the election come down to issues in cities and ignores the fewer people in smaller areas. People wouldn't perform on the job to help those in areas where their vote means less. They would focus solely on the areas with larger population, as that is where the cash cow is for getting elected.

Living in upstate NY, I see the problems with all funding and attention going to other parts of the state.

That's the classic argument in favor of it, I know. I submit to you that not voting dem and living anywhere in NY your vote doesn't count anyway, so why not give it chance to count? The "Proportionality thesis" increases the likelihood that your or a dem in Oklahoma's vote would count rather than be meaningless.

With the current EC system, it's still about winning in the population centers.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

I don't agrree with you. I think this is the first election in US history where either candidate is better than the sitting president.

As a Democrat, I dislike McCain less than any other Republican that has run for the office and would be perfectly comfortable with him as our president if he hadn't nominated Sarah Palin. I would even have like Huckleberrry for Veep.

I also disagree that it is a given how BO will act once elected, or if that even happens. (we talk about it like it's a done deal and it ain't) He'll want to be successful, and he knows the only way to do that is to molt and move to the center. Modern Dems pretty much have to or face being obsolete in a hurry. Given his choice of being Carter or Clinton, I'm pretty sure he'll want to be Clinton. And if he really bones up on his history, he won't wait until year 4 or 5 to make that move.

He got lucky that conditions were such that he could get elected and discovered a forumla to achieve victory. The he has run one of the most impressive political campaigns in our lifetime, so don't be so quick to diminish his potential as a manager.

Am I worried about how far he slants to the left or about his inexperience? You bet I am. But I still choose him over McCain because I believe that he has a far greater learning curve potential than does McCain. Jmac should have been elected back in 2000, and but for a Rove smear campaign might have been.


Unfortunately for Jmac, time is not on his side and he has incurred too much doubt even from what should be patches of loyalty, that if he does win, he is likely to be a very ineffective president.

I feel that either one is a one term president. I just worry about the amount of damage they do in 1 term.

I just happen to feel the potential for damage is less with mccain than obama. I also feel that mccain is a known quantity, and obama is an empty suit with a troubled past. That is a dangerous combination, and is not a risk I am willing to take.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by KingOlerud

You've just shifted the discussion purposefully (as in, I know you didn't do it by accident). Suffice it to say, I may be "onto something", but it sure as hell isn't what you just attributed to me. But by all means, write four more paragraphs about said misattribution below, and then pose a question which will demonize me.
I have "ignored race's role throughout American history" now? How the hell would you know? But let's take the absolute worst case scenario here and assume that I have done this dirty deed, every single day of my life. I can assure you that it is because "race" is a demonic construct under pure ownership of the loony, prejudicial, hateful left.

"Race" is as dumb a concept as hair color, sightedness and shoe size. I have been betrayed and kicked in the teeth by people of all shapes and sizes. I have been taught and helped by people of all shapes and sizes. I've had the trust and respect of people of all shapes and sizes. And if the world wasn't full of small-minded folks who couldn't stop reminding the rest of us to genuflect upon the high art, made-up vision of so-called "race" at every turn, then it would be a much, much happier place.

But that doesn't mean I can't call it like I see it. I know that libs want to own this topic and silence everyone else about it. So you're looking in the wrong direction for that one.

I don't think you're doing it on purpose. And that's kind of the problem.

I hear ya on your utopian vision of race. I just think you're being a little naive. And it's not a lib monopoly on the issue\; there's plenty of charged, accusatory invective to go around.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

That's the classic argument in favor of it, I know. I submit to you that not voting dem and living anywhere in NY your vote doesn't count anyway, so why not give it chance to count? The "Proportionality thesis" increases the likelihood that your or a dem in Oklahoma's vote would count rather than be meaningless.

With the current EC system, it's still about winning in the population centers.

Still, I think it is a better alternative than actively giving potential Presidents the incentive to focus only on issues of those in cities.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I feel that either one is a one term president. I just worry about the amount of damage they do in 1 term.

I just happen to feel the potential for damage is less with mccain than obama. I also feel that mccain is a known quantity, and obama is an empty suit with a troubled past. That is a dangerous combination, and is not a risk I am willing to take.

Both inherit problems not of their doing and that cannot be solved in a mere 4 years.

We're fuKed in the war and on the econ.

The demographics of this nation in age alone point to a bad time for a long time. For a good read, try The next great bubble boom, by HS Dnet. Though he was wrong about the Dow going up to 25000 before its collapse, he has called it for the rigth reasons and makes compelling connections between all markets and US demographics since the inception of the Dow. I'd be curious to know his take on the bailout.

As for the war...it continues no matter what. Only question is how bad it gets if or when we do pull out. If we stay in large numbers for much longer, it's unaccpetable. If we pull out and leave small troop forces, we run the risk of exposing them to harm by not having a critical mass to back them up, and if we pull out completely, they have a civil war in 5 years or less that undoes or makes worse whatever we leave behind. The chances of their maitianing a valid constitutional democracy, even in regional terms, is ultra slim at best.

So while it's cool that Udu and Kutay, or whatever the f their names were are dead along with their dad, it's not clear that we have a viable exit strategy that doesnt fall apart when we go home.

[KingOlerud]

Originally Posted by ambler

I don't think you're doing it on purpose. And that's kind of the problem.

"It"? Ya know, for such a wordy fellow, you sure know how to elude elucidation when it eludes you.

[gregjefferies09]

Originally Posted by ambler

Both inherit problems not of their doing and that cannot be solved in a mere 4 years.

Given their positions in life now, they were partly responsible.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

I feel that either one is a one term president. I just worry about the amount of damage they do in 1 term.

A point that I haven't heard talked about is that one of those two is going back to the senate.

Imagine if Jmac wins and Obama is in the senate as the de facto opposition leader. Jmac, aging with all the problems he's inheriting, is not able to muster much of a counter. Kinda like his campaign...

Does that set up a slam dunk for BO in 2012 if Jmac tanks?

[ambler]

Originally Posted by gregjefferies09

Given their positions in life now, they were partly responsible.

I don't buy it. Nor do I blame it all on the pres. The dereg stuff goes back to Carter.

[Green Must Go]

I guess Powell won't be on McCain's TV channel then. Oh wait, only Obama has his own network.

[KingOlerud]

Originally Posted by ambler

I don't think you're doing it on purpose. And that's kind of the problem.

I hear ya on your utopian vision of race. I just think you're being a little naive. And it's not a lib monopoly on the issue\; there's plenty of charged, accusatory invective to go around.

Tell me, ambles... if my "utopian vision of race" is so "naive", how is it that a half arab, black guy is this close to being elected President of the United States?

I'll give you as long as you need to construct an answer that properly straddles your dissonance.

[metman]

Yeah, I'm sure if a plain dull white guy with the same agenda/history were the candidate, Powell would go out of his way to endorse him.

Right. Please...liberals refuse to accept any hidden reasons/negative agendas with no whites, so I know it's an empty conversation. That said, if one is objective, you have to realize it's a combination of history and being fed up with the administration.

[metman]

K.O>>Again, as i said 6 months or so ago, white libs cannot say anything negative about a minority. It CANNOT happen.

Might as well talk to a wall instead. (Make sure it's a black wall, though, so you show compassion and an open mind. Compassion is key)

[ambler]

Originally Posted by KingOlerud

Tell me, ambles... if my "utopian vision of race" is so "naive", how is it that a half arab, black guy is this close to being elected President of the United States?

I'll give you as long as you need to construct an answer that properly straddles your dissonance.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point.


I thought I read that your view is that race should be as consequential as shoe size. I disagree with the premise based on history where shoe size never factored into whether or not one had access to the political process. Race, on the other hand, does and always has mattered. It's no different now, save for the unwarranted outrage some express over it which, given the aforementioned historical points, might appear to some as selective and aribtrary. Hence, my charge that your comparison of race to shoe size is naive, if not invalid. Again, I prefaced it by saying that I may not have properly understood your point.

[ambler]

Originally Posted by metman

Yeah, I'm sure if a plain dull white guy with the same agenda/history were the candidate, Powell would go out of his way to endorse him.

Right. Please...liberals refuse to accept any hidden reasons/negative agendas with no whites, so I know it's an empty conversation. That said, if one is objective, you have to realize it's a combination of history and being fed up with the administration.

Who is denying that? Obama is only relevant on the heels of one of the worst presidents ever. But there is nothing wrong with his race being a factor in his favor, which is what a lot of people are stubbornly resisting.