U.S. Politics thread

[robert]

I know Obama has his own thread, so I wanted to start a general one. I had a party at my house last night and politics was a main topic for an hour or two early into the morning from 12:30-2:30AM. Lots of interesting topics were brought up. My roommate davidtarrfoster spent years heavily into politics so he's quite intelligent (far more than most) on this subject matter.

 

It was very interesting for me to listen and occasionally chime in. Anyway, feel free to discuss U.S. Politics here.

[robert]

I found this message about Kucinich:

 

You see, with regard to all the countries in the world, I don't think there

has been major political or philosophical change that occurred with the

consent of the established media or the in-power political parties. It

simply is not in their interest to foster change. They thrive in the status

quo. Changes in those countries have come from the people -- as the saying goes, "they've come from streets." (I'm a firm believer in the adage, "when the people lead, the leaders will follow.")

 

Recalcitrance on the part of the established media and the in-power

political parties is even more of a factor in our own country where the

major media outlets are owned by the same people who own the

military-industrial complex, the insurance companies, the drug companies,

and the healthcare providing infrastructure. If there ever was a time and

place where the major media supported the status quo, it is right here and

right now. (And don't get me started on the stick-in-the-mud Democratic

Party.)

 

These are the reasons I don't advocate beating our collective heads against

the brick wall of begging for inclusion from the established media. It's

not that they don't understand that excluding Dennis is silencing a voice

for the change we desperately need -- that is EXACTLY why they excluded him.

This wasn't an oversight by a "free press" that wanted to present the full

spectrum of political opinions. It was a conscious decision by industrial

giants that are resolute in their effort to maintain their position. Their

silence on Dennis is just a symptom of a larger slanting of the news. It is

not an isolated problem, but the way the system is supposed to work.

 

I think that petitioning the media to include Dennis's point of view and

give it publicity is akin to asking a pickpocket to publish videos of his

work. The publicity would put him out of business -- and it would do the

same for the corporate owners of the major media.

 

Instead, I advocate taking our message to the "streets" -- a course of

action that is made much easier by the exchange of information now available

through the Internet. But I don't think it's just about the Internet. It's

face-to-face contact, and getting out to where people congregate that will

spread the message. It's talking to friends, neighbors, coworkers, church

members, and the clerk at the store that influences people.

 

I know how easy it is to get diverted by what seems to be a worthy object of

our righteous indignations, I've been diverted many times myself over the

years. I now strongly believe we have to stay focused on the real

objective, and not waste valuable energy tilting at windmills.

 

--

 

A KUCINICH FIRST FAMILY WOULD HAVE PUT YOUR FAMILY FIRST

[BodhiDave85]

Now that Kucinich is out of the picture, I'd be interested in knowing what people here think about Mr. Ron Paul.

[Guest]

I have a lot of questions about Paul. On the surface he seems great but the Ron Paul Newsletters under his name. They are very racist and bigoted. He's taken responsibility(somewhat) for whats been written by others in the Newsletter but he hasn't really denounced anything in them as much as someone should so it makes me think he still supports some of those ideals.

[CollegeB]

Some of the top free market folks are being tagged in blogs which claim their guilt. People like Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. I've been reading lew for around 5 years now and never has he been biggoted in any way. Ron is certainly not to blame either. I think that was accepted as fact about an hour after the story broke. The newsletters came out from a statist blogger who just selected a few sentences which out of context seem worse than they are. Though from my education the term racism has just about vanished and we talk about prejudice. I can see how people could call some of the comments prejudieced, others make more sense if you consider who they are coming from in a political sense. I've seen some evidence that some racist guy picked these out of the old newsletters, but its iffy. Then we have the CATO institute and Reason magazine who began writing about these newsletters soon after the blogger. The New Republic did this as well, but I think their case is similar to Reason and CATO except they are self proclaimed conservatives not libertarians so I have almost no dealings with them. Reason I like and CATO I don't for the most part, but both dislike Rockwell and Rothbard, and on Rockwell's site there are little jabs at CATO especially. Anti-war.com also has many pieces against both (CATO and Reason), but supports Lew Rockwell. Members of CATO endorse Thompson and the same holds true at Reason. In principle both entities are anti war and pro market same as Rockwell, but many of the contributors are supporters of the Iraq war because Thompson is and Paul is not. I know there are probably not many of you who float around in this little libertarian world so if there is more explaining I'll do my best to help you get on level.

 

Just to clarify I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I agree with him on many things. You can message me through this site or reply to this if you are looking for more information.

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe that statements like this in a Newletter under your name would not be known. I've heard him say he wasn't aware of some of the things the writers wrote. Thing is...these terrible words were printed monthly. How can you not find out about that...or read about that...or get so many complaints that you need to address them. Its easy..the complaints most likely didn't bother him since the sentiment he felt was supported by many of his past supporters(its different now of course).

Words like "bring back the closet" for gays, and "the animals are taking over the DC Zoo"...that after riots in DC, and an article called the "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism." the article states order was only restored in L.A. "when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks" I don't know how you can deny words like this. Its a fact that these were written...the question is...can you separate these words from Paul??? I don't really think you can considering he hasn't really denounced these words and it would have been easy for him to do so at least once after the first racist publication. Thing is he didn't...words like these went "unnoticed" by him for years and were written under his name...regardless of who wrote the words...it seems he would have to have been in support of them...or he really is one of the most clueless people on the planet which I doubt because he is a very intelligent man.

[CollegeB]

A lot of the politicos talking about this thing have said the politicians have ghostwriters, and while letters go out under their name, it does not mean they've read them. If Paul did know then thats tarnish on his personal character, but I believe this is impossible. How could a prejudiced person cite MLK as a hero or participate in African American debates? Or how could such a person believe gays should be allowed to serve in the military just like anyone else? I think a person who is very bigoted would not call for an end to the war on drugs, but Paul (despite the racist you think he is) wants an end to the drug war just for starters because of how it is obviously affecting a disproportionate amount of african americans.

[Guest]

I think its common sense that someone would have complained to his office about those newsletters throughout the many years they were written. I'm sure he's even gotten death threats. How can you not notice that happening???? How can someone be so unaware for so long when there is no way in hell people wouldn't be protesting these letters??? Its like Bush being unaware that people don't like this war.

 

As for quoting MLK I know the type of racist that calls prominent African Americans like MLK and Colin Powell...the good blacks(I've gone to school with my share of people that think good blacks are like everyone else but most blacks are filth to them). Most other blacks are worthless to them and they often feel every black person should be just like the few good blacks...after all...Paul did say only 95% of blacks are semi criminal or criminal...I'm pretty sure this is one of the statements he wrote himself. And if he believed/believes thats true then that leaves 5% of the afro-American population as being good. As for ending the war on drugs I think every bigot wants that. It makes life more bearable when they are around those they feel are pathetic human being. If he though most blacks were on drugs and that made them worse then most racists would want drugs gone.

[CollegeB]

If Paul is in danger it's not over these letters. There have been only a few journalists over the past two decades who have asked him about these and they all get the same response he gives now.

The president of the NAACP in Austin also likes Paul personally and has defended him very recently. That quip about 95% of blacks being criminals was only referring to washington d.c. where official numbers put the rate of incarceration for that population at about 85%. I imagine Paul did not know the exact figure, but even if he did know then the other 10% probably is made up of various african american neo-con type politicians who are criminals.

 

Bigots want the war on drugs potter. It puts a very disproportionate amount of minorities in prison, it does not help them at all. The war on drugs is just a way for the government to enforce covert racial population control. I hope you're not defending that.

 

Anyhow if you want Ron's word on this, here is him on CNN with Wolf Blitzer...

http://

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss

[CollegeB]

Giuliani gave me a birthday present, he dropped out of the race! Edwards is out too! Now if all the other candidates would drop out...uh thats wishful thinking.

[Guest]

I don't think Paul is in trouble since he's not going anywhere anyway...not much different than Kucinich.

 

As for the Paul statement about the 95% I think thats wishful thinking and being over-forgiving to think he only meant those in prison. After all its not like this was the first questionable thing stated in the newsletters. As for the war on drugs I don't think its just a war against race...after all there wouldn't be so much money put into meth prevention...not that it works but a lot is invested and meth really is a white problem more than anything. If I were president I'd go after the drug issue as well...not the way its been gone after since it doesn't work but some other way. It doesn't have to be about race. And as of now the real poisonous drugs on society are much more of a white issue than an African American issue. Marijuana is something I don't really care to deal with outside of children getting a hold of it. And to me it seems alcoholism is a much larger problem...a problem that hits every demographic but in reality it hits whites more than blacks if you don't look purely at those under the poverty line where its pretty even across the board no matter what race you are.

I don't think Paul would make a bad President. I think he is a biggot and I think for the most part things would improve under him even though he's a biggot. After all he can't hide every black person from his sight...he wouldn't waste his energy anyway since he knows "blacks are fleet-footed" and he couldn't catch all of them. We've had Presidents that have owned slaves and still repaired parts of society. I think he could do the same. I don't think a biggot is any worse than a person that eats meat...they are all bad in a way and I'm obviously gonna be voting for a meat eater in this election. I'd rather not but thats life. If I believed in Paul's foreign policy(I support his view on the war but not much else), and anti gay sentiment I'd even consider voting for him despite my problems with his bigotry.

[CollegeB]

When I consider the african american and gay paul supporters I have talked to about this, they dont believe he is a bigot. I ask why and they give me plenty of the same reasons I have presented. They've looked into this more than I have and are convinced paul is no bigot. Are these people not seeing the correct information, do they have low IQ's, are they paid workers in the campaign, whats the disconnect? Clearly they are not getting the message, how can I prove to them you are correct potter?

[Guest]

Well you could always ask someone thats not a Paul supporter...which is the majority of America. Are they not getting the message???

[robert]

Things are getting interesting!

 

McCain is now the front runner on the Republican side and Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat for the Democrats.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_rdp

[Guest]

I'm thinking Obama's momentum will be too much. Hillary has had the same support since before this whole thing started and Obama has been sucking up all the independents and everyone who was going to vote for the other democratic candidates.

When it comes to the other side they don't have a shot now. I like McCain a lot more than the other morons but republicans don't like him and I think a decent percentage of the far right will stay home for the national race while a small percentage of republics that are against the war will be willing to vote democratic. Looking at it now I really think Huckabee had the only shot at getting the republicans together.

[CollegeB]

McCain and Hillary won most of the same states. How strange.

[hsorlando]

If it ends up being between McCain,and Clinton I'm not voting!

[Guest]

If it end up being Hillary and McCain I really hope Bloomberg decides to jump in. I doubt he will because he respects McCain so much but it would be nice. I'm thinking he was only planning on getting in if McCain and Obama didn't make it to the final race.

[CollegeB]

Not much of a variety between those two. Does anybody else like the multiparty systems? I'm getting bored with just two.

[Guest]

I'm a little bored with the two parties but at the same time money talks and its our fault there are really only two parties. We created the tradition and I don't blame politicians for that. If we want another party we've gotta pay for it.

[CollegeB]

it would help if they didn't have so many hurdles thrown in their path(s) by the two parties.

[tatman6006]

it would help if they didn't have so many hurdles thrown in their path(s) by the two parties.

 

I think Nader said it best back in 2004. We've got a one-party system masquerading as a two-party system.

 

When you're stuck in that sort of scenario, it makes it next to impossible for any real change to happen.

 

That said, I don't think any of the candidates (with the exception of maybe Kucinich) would be willing to bring any kind of meaningful change to the table as Democrats.

[tatman6006]

If it ends up being between McCain,and Clinton I'm not voting!

 

Seriously! Talk about a "hold your nose and vote" scenario! Of course, we're going to wind up with that scenario regardless... It just may be between McCain and Obama, or McCain and Clinton. Either way I'm holding my nose at the thought of either.

[CollegeB]

To make it stink a little more i've been reading that mcCain has said some racist things...

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL

[Zack]

To make it stink a little more i've been reading that mcCain has said some racist things...

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL

 

 

I don't blame him. Mccain has my respect.