The legacy of 'W'?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What happened to Ron Paul? I still have this gut feeling Gore is going to enter the race

I would totally vote for him but he's not going to make it out of the Republican primaries and he said if he doesn't he wouldn't run as an independent. Basically, I'm not going to be able to vote for him.

Obama on the other hand has a realistic chance of winning the primary. We'll just have to see if he can beat Hilary.

As for Gore, his time is up. I don't get why the fuck people want him to run. That ship has sailed. Time to move on.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

I would totally vote for him but he's not going to make it out of the Republican primaries and he said if he doesn't he wouldn't run as an independent. Basically, I'm not going to be able to vote for him.

Obama on the other hand has a realistic chance of winning the primary. We'll just have to see if he can beat Hilary.

As for Gore, his time is up. I don't get why the fuck people want him to run. That ship has sailed. Time to move on.

Good points. I don't think Gore should run, I just have this feeling he and Newt will enter the fray this fall. Could be wrong though.

I think I should accept that McCain is done now so I must look elsewhere. Who would be the VP on your Obama ticket?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Good points. I don't think Gore should run, I just have this feeling he and Newt will enter the fray this fall. Could be wrong though.

I think I should accept that McCain is done now so I must look elsewhere. Who would be the VP on your Obama ticket?

I think I would make a great VP therefore I should be on his ticket. No seriously, I don't know but I would get excited about Harold Ford Jr. Anyone ethical and with great character would do though.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

I would totally vote for him but he's not going to make it out of the Republican primaries and he said if he doesn't he wouldn't run as an independent. Basically, I'm not going to be able to vote for him.

Obama on the other hand has a realistic chance of winning the primary. We'll just have to see if he can beat Hilary.

As for Gore, his time is up. I don't get why the fuck people want him to run. That ship has sailed. Time to move on.

I'm glad to see you come over to the Obama camp. He's definitely within striking distance of Hillary.

By the way, don't be suprised to see Obama and Edwards on the same ticket.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

p.s. Obama for president because it feels right.

I find it interesting that the Democrats are throwing every kind of minority they can into the ring. (not that they are doing it on purpose, just how it fell this year)
1- Clinton - female
2- Obama - African American
3- Richardson - Mexican
So if they are going to win the white house back, they are going to have to do it in a HUGE an unprecidented way.

FYI- I could get on board with Obama, but not those other two. You guys have no idea how bad Richardson is. It's like SS knowing Stewart, I have met Richardson on several occasions, and he is one horrible person. He has hurt this state a lot.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I find it interesting that the Democrats are throwing every kind of minority they can into the ring. (not that they are doing it on purpose, just how it fell this year)
1- Clinton - female
2- Obama - African American
3- Richardson - Mexican
So if they are going to win the white house back, they are going to have to do it in a HUGE an unprecidented way.

FYI- I could get on board with Obama, but not those other two. You guys have no idea how bad Richardson is. It's like SS knowing Stewart, I have met Richardson on several occasions, and he is one horrible person. He has hurt this state a lot.

They don't have to do jack because Republicans have molested the nation for the past 12 years. You would like to see people get on board with the democrats but the sad truth people are going to vote against Republicans more so than vote for Democrats.

As for Richardson, he's a recycled old timer I don't like recycling head coaches and I certainly don't like recycled politicians.

I actually did some volunteer work for Obama last weekend and was quite surprised how white people in general felt about him. They really liked him and I was taken aback quite a bit. It was an amazing experience really to hear what they thought about him. This is in the Northwest which is a little bit different from the rest of the country...we'll see how he does against Hilary.

I'm curious, in what way has Richardson hurt Arizona?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

This is in the Northwest which is a little bit different from the rest of the country

I am pretty dubious of the rest of this country in this regard. I tend to wonder if even Hillary has a chance in a general election. I know a lot of people I would be suprised if they voted for either simply because I don't see them voting for a woman or a black. Sad but true. I hope I am wrong, even though I wouldn't voted for either, but I strongly suspect that their race and gender are going to be bigger factors than everyone wants to believe.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am pretty dubious of the rest of this country in this regard. I tend to wonder if even Hillary has a chance in a general election. I know a lot of people I would be suprised if they voted for either simply because I don't see them voting for a woman or a black. Sad but true. I hope I am wrong, even though I wouldn't voted for either, but I strongly suspect that their race and gender are going to be bigger factors than everyone wants to believe.

If Hilary or Obama is nominated I would think the blue states would be behind the ticket but that's generally give. The states that really matter are Midwest states like Ohio and Michigan. That's really the rest of the country. The election comes down to those state's level or racism/sexism i guess.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

They don't have to do jack because Republicans have molested the nation for the past 12 years. You would like to see people get on board with the democrats but the sad truth people are going to vote against Republicans more so than vote for Democrats.

Unfortunately, you're likely right. However, Bush was not very well liked going into 2004 and he won cause the dems threw up one HORRIBLE candidate in Kerry. If they do it again, I think the republicans will stay in power. (ps- I am a registered independant in case you missed it, I am only concerned for the well being of our country, and I am huge advocate for alternative fuels and animal rights.)
By the way...12 years? How so? It's been 7 under Bush, and the previous 8 years before that was Clinton.

I actually did some volunteer work for Obama last weekend and was quite surprised how white people in general felt about him. They really liked him and I was taken aback quite a bit. It was an amazing experience really to hear what they thought about him. This is in the Northwest which is a little bit different from the rest of the country...we'll see how he does against Hilary.

That's because Obama is about as black as Brunell. What percentage african american is he anyway?
Sad thing is he won't get the proper recognition cause you know that KKK type people that live in the deep south could care less what he has to say.

I'm curious, in what way has Richardson hurt Arizona?

That really is a loaded question, and trust me when I say I am exhausted with dealing with him. But I will say these two things, 1- he bankrupted the state within the first 4 months he was in office, and 2- he ceased funding to the senior citizens who depended on it to give more funding to single mothers having more babies. I'm getting annoyed just talking about him.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Unfortunately, you're likely right. However, Bush was not very well liked going into 2004 and he won cause the dems threw up one HORRIBLE candidate in Kerry. If they do it again, I think the republicans will stay in power. (ps- I am a registered independant in case you missed it, I am only concerned for the well being of our country, and I am huge advocate for alternative fuels and animal rights.)
By the way...12 years? How so? It's been 7 under Bush, and the previous 8 years before that was Clinton.




That's because Obama is about as black as Brunell. What percentage african american is he anyway?
Sad thing is he won't get the proper recognition cause you know that KKK type people that live in the deep south could care less what he has to say.



That really is a loaded question, and trust me when I say I am exhausted with dealing with him. But I will say these two things, 1- he bankrupted the state within the first 4 months he was in office, and 2- he ceased funding to the senior citizens who depended on it to give more funding to single mothers having more babies. I'm getting annoyed just talking about him.

I believe Barack was born to a Black father and White mother. But the father left so he was raised by his mom and her parents

What's with all this Richardson and Arizona talk? What does he have to do with Arizona? Isn't he New Mexico?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

That's because Obama is about as black as Brunell. What percentage african american is he anyway?
Sad thing is he won't get the proper recognition cause you know that KKK type people that live in the deep south could care less what he has to say

I know you're not trying to be racist here, but what does that mean, he's as black as Brunell? Senator Obama, and you may know this already, but his father is from Kenya and his mother is from Kansas; Both are deceased. But in our society, particularly America, if you're just a tacit black, you're considered all black. No one's really looking at him as a half white candidate or a mixed candidate. As far as America is concerned, he's just as black as, let's say, Bernie Mack!!

Also, when you look at his work prior to joining the state and U.S. Senate, respectively, for three years he earned a paltry salary as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. Now I'm not sure if you've ever been to the south side of Chi-town, but it's the hood all day long! My point is, he's not just another black candidate with a nice pretty resume from Harvard, he actually has some dirt under his fingernails working with the black community and he has strong ties to the black church as well. I only highlight these points because, in my mind, that settles the issue of his "blackness", if you will. The media has tried to spin that question a few times - Is he black enough or is white America ready for a black President?

I partially disagree with the assumption that folks in the deep south could care less about what he's saying. I don't think the vast majority of voters in the south are looking at things in that context. Like Saden, I've been working with the campaign here in D.C. (volunteering) and the response, at least in this region, has been pretty positive. It's also worth noting that parts of the state of Illinois are just as segragated and backwards as parts of the south. Yet he proved to be effective enough to overcome racial barriers there to become Senator.

I feel Americans are ready to unite the country at all costs, and they're looking for leadership right now; Whether it's a Latino, a female, a black, or caucasion. I'll go a step further, they're not overly concerned with party affiliation as they have been in the past. I think when you look at the overwhelming response people have had to both Senator Obama and Hillary, it's a good indication of how people are willing to break from the status quo and move the country foward. Americans are hungry for new leadership.

I'm not trying to "jump on you" or be racially insensitive because that's not my stick, but I think often times we allow the media to feed us images of a candidate and we're really in the dark about who they really are and what they're really about. Either of his books are good reads and pretty insightful about him as an individual and a candidate.

[FRPLG]

Here's a link to WaPo's reporting on Fla's statewide "recount".

Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush (washingtonpost.com)

Couple of things:

It shows Gore may have won had ALL of the disputed votes, 175,010 to be exact, in the entire state been counted. By 171 votes at most.

The "recount" was not actually a recount but a study sponsored and conducted by various news media.

My problems with they way Crazyhorse is using this are several fold.

It seems CH that you are asserting that this study shows that Gore actually won the state when in fact it shows nothing of the sort. It shows when only the disputed votes are recounted by hand that Gore wins. It says nothing about all the other non-disputed votes which surely have mistakes numbering in the hundreds at least. Statistically that is certian. Who knows, these votes could fall for Gore or maybe not but in the end the 171 margin produced by counting only a small portion of the votes, disputed or not, is competely insignificant. Heck the article points out that basically we'll never know. So don't use this supposed "recount" in your arguments without properly understanding it please.

As for the disenfranchised non-felons. The info I found while Googling showed the number to be 8,000. Not 80,000. Not insiginificant by any means but someone so in the know, educated, and stuck on facts I thought you should know that your number is wrong. Also my researching, short as it was, didn't really lead me to believe that some type of conspiracy was perpetrated. It seems likes a regular old screw up.

Now I did find some info that had actual felons been allowed to vote Gore would have won by 80,000 votes. Maybe CH is confusing his number with this one. Imagine that, convicted felons voting for Gore. Who'd have thought?

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Here's a link to WaPo's reporting on Fla's statewide "recount".

Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush (washingtonpost.com)

Couple of things:

It shows Gore may have won had ALL of the disputed votes, 175,010 to be exact, in the entire state been counted. By 171 votes at most.

The "recount" was not actually a recount but a study sponsored and conducted by various news media.

My problems with they way Crazyhorse is using this are several fold.

It seems CH that you are asserting that this study shows that Gore actually won the state when in fact it shows nothing of the sort. It shows when only the disputed votes are recounted by hand that Gore wins. It says nothing about all the other non-disputed votes which surely have mistakes numbering in the hundreds at least. Statistically that is certian. Who knows, these votes could fall for Gore or maybe not but in the end the 171 margin produced by counting only a small portion of the votes, disputed or not, is competely insignificant. Heck the article points out that basically we'll never know. So don't use this supposed "recount" in your arguments without properly understanding it please.

As for the disenfranchised non-felons. The info I found while Googling showed the number to be 8,000. Not 80,000. Not insiginificant by any means but someone so in the know, educated, and stuck on facts I thought you should know that your number is wrong. Also my researching, short as it was, didn't really lead me to believe that some type of conspiracy was perpetrated. It seems likes a regular old screw up.

Now I did find some info that had actual felons been allowed to vote Gore would have won by 80,000 votes. Maybe CH is confusing his number with this one. Imagine that, convicted felons voting for Gore. Who'd have thought?

I'm glad you've entered the discussion. There are valid links for all the "facts" you relate. I chose links that support my position just as you chose links that supported yours. Early reports tended to support the notion that foul ups caused the problem, a notion I long ago rejected after reading other reports. Your 8,000 felons may be the correct number but no one knows for sure. At the time, we, the dems, believed the number of scrubbed voters to be around 178,000, a figure that included around 80,000 phony ex-cons, almost all of whom were blacks.
The only recount worth considering, in my view, is the hand-counted one which found for Gore, the law at the time stipulating that recounts should be hand counted, or so I believe and do defend. No, I didn't confuse 8,000 for 80,000, but even 8,000 proves fraud if deliberately scrubbed and would certainly have given the election to Gore.

[SmootSmack]

What was this thread about again?

[Redskins8588]

I think that we need to put Crazyhorse and SBF in a cage match...