• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Iowa 2008 Caucus Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
thekad said:
I think y'all are looking too deeply into the race issue. It was a Democrat caucus. The racists are in the Republican party - sorry siamesedreamer - and down here in Texas.
Click to expand...

No, you're right, only Republicans are racist, and only Southerners as well. All we do all day is hate black people. Hate hate hate.
 
Tamanon said:
No, you're right, only Republicans are racist, and only Southerners as well. All we do all day is hate black people. Hate hate hate.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you don't do it all day. Sometimes you hate Gays, Liberals, and the French as well.
 
Tamanon said:
No, you're right, only Republicans are racist, and only Southerners as well. All we do all day is hate black people. Hate hate hate.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence is on my side, but I think most analysts will agree with me. Those who wouldn't vote for a candidate just because he is black, or Mexican, or whatever are mostly Republican...and down here in Texas.
 
Liara T'Soni said:
The racial shit surrounding Obama is soooo much deeper then most of us (Me included) really care to look at.

I don't really know how I would feel about him getting elected. It would definitely be a good sign, and as I said, I would have NEVER thought it possible a few years ago, even so, I don't think his election will be a signal to sound the "Racism is dead" trumpet, at the same time, many blacks (Me included) will definitely need to rethink what we feel the racial situation in the country is. It will be interesting.
-snip-
Click to expand...
Sounds like you want this to be a race issue.You underestimate most of middle America. They don't care, and the # of racists in this country are enough to have any effect on the general election.


Anecdotal evidence is on my side, but I think most analysts will agree with me. Those who wouldn't vote for a candidate just because he is black, or Mexican, or whatever are mostly Republican...and down here in Texas.
Click to expand...
How is not bannable to accuse anyone republican of being racist.

It's like calling me you a *** becuase you're (I'm assuming) a democrat. I would be gone.
 
God's Beard said:
If Clinton loses the nomination, what are the chances of Huckabee reaching across party borders to pick her up as a running-mate? Is something like that even possible? Just some rediculous thought I had.
Click to expand...


Politically, it doesn't make much sense for this to happen. For either candidate. If Huckabee wins, he is going to need an "old guard" neo-con friendly candidate to solidify his base. McCain would be a better fit, although I doubt he has any interest in being a #2.


avatar299 said:
How is not bannable to accuse anyone republican of being racist.

It's like calling me you a *** becuase you're (I'm assuming) a democrat. I would be gone
Click to expand...


I think you are overreacting.
 
avatar299 said:
How is not bannable to accuse anyone republican of being racist.

It's like calling me you a *** becuase you're (I'm assuming) a democrat. I would be gone
Click to expand...
You have serious reading comprehension skills if you think he was saying all republicans are racists.
 
demon said:
You have serious reading comprehension skills if you think he was saying all republicans are racists.
Click to expand...

You're right, he was saying all racists are Republican:P

BTW, Toxic, I think at this stage McCain might take the Veep nod, just because it might be the ceiling for him.
 
avatar299 said:
you're right, all racists are republican. That's so much better.
Click to expand...
He’s saying that he’s highly doubt that there are white supremacists who would consider voting for the democrats, let alone caucus for them.
Are you disagreeing?
 
Tamanon said:
BTW, Toxic, I think at this stage McCain might take the Veep nod, just because it might be the ceiling for him.
Click to expand...


It would be a major drop in status and power for him to leave his Senate seat for it. He won his last election 75%-25% ... and would stand a good chance of winning again in 2010, despite the record apathy towards incumbent Senators.

If he plans to retire in 2010, than maybe a VP job would be a good way to cap his career and could possibly extend his political career a few more years.
 
theBishop said:
PS: I do think its over the line to accuse republicans of being a fundamentally racist voting bloc.
Click to expand...
Who the hell said that?
Saying that racists are more likely to vote GOP (be it wrong or right) does not mean all Republicans are racist, or that the party and its views are racist.
 
Chichikov said:
He’s saying that he’s highly doubt that there are white supremacists who would consider voting for the democrats, let alone caucus for them.
Are you disagreeing?
Click to expand...
I don't think it really matters. Neo-Nazi/KKK are blatantly anti-American establishment. They don't vote at all.

Aside from them the number of racists on both sides I would say is equal. Republicans historically not voting for a black candidate doesn't mean much when there has been very few black viable candidates on a national scale.

I wouldn't call someone who doesn't vote Jesse Jackson a racist
 
Tamanon said:
And who does the NAACP vote for?:P

Not as blatantly racist, but still there.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting they only vote for black candidates? I mean, they might as well not vote.

If you're saying they only vote Democrat, then well I don't see how that is racist at all.
 
thekad said:
Are you suggesting they only vote for black candidates? I mean, they might as well not vote.

If you're saying they only vote Democrat, then well I don't see how that is racist at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they're racist for voting Democrat, I'm saying they are a racist organization. Albeit not as vitriolic and obvious as the KKK, but they still are.
 
if Clinton or Edwards had actually voted against the war and its funding I'm sure either one would have won. Instead Barack took first place.

His campaign is blah if you ask me. I haven't heard one detail of what he would do as President other than putting tanks in Pakistan(why??).

Whoever the Dem nominnee is, he/she better pick a good VP(someone progressive) or I'll be voting for Bloomberg or some other 3rd party candidate.
 
Tamanon said:
I'm not saying they're racist for voting Democrat, I'm saying they are a racist organization. Albeit not as vitriolic and obvious as the KKK, but they still are.
Click to expand...

Oh ok.

Well, I am not trying to start a race war, no matter how much you Republicans want me to. I just don't think those who wouldn't vote for someone because they are black would be in the Democratic party. Again, anecdotal evidence is on my side(ie stormfront).

ErasureAcer said:
His campaign is blah if you ask me. I haven't heard one detail of what he would do as President other than putting tanks in Pakistan(why??).
Click to expand...

Where have you been?

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
 
Tamanon said:
I'm not saying they're racist for voting Democrat, I'm saying they are a racist organization. Albeit not as vitriolic and obvious as the KKK, but they still are.
Click to expand...
Exit. Stage right. NACCP isn't racist..by common definition..but I seriously wonder if they have outlived their usefulness.

thekad said:
Oh ok.

Well, I am not trying to start a race war, no matter how much you Republicans want me to. I just don't think those who wouldn't vote for someone because they are black would be in the Democratic party. Again, anecdotal evidence is on my side(ie stormfront).
Click to expand...
:lol

if Clinton or Edwards had actually voted against the war and its funding I'm sure either one would have won. Instead Barack took first place.

His campaign is blah if you ask me. I haven't heard one detail of what he would do as President other than putting tanks in Pakistan(why??).

Whoever the Dem nominnee is, he/she better pick a good VP(someone progressive) or I'll be voting for Bloomberg or some other 3rd party candidate.
Click to expand...
Weren't you moved to tears by Obama's foriegn policy of sticks and carrots?
 
ErasureAcer said:
if Clinton or Edwards had actually voted against the war and its funding I'm sure either one would have won. Instead Barack took first place.
Click to expand...
But the war was not the top concern and has been barely even a topic for months.
 
Racism is more common among the elderly and the Southern, two typically Republican-favoring demographics. Thus, the majority of racists are likely Republican. It's simply a correlation, not causation. I consider myself a moderate, as I refuse to let party lines determine who I vote for. I'm a big Obama supporter, but I would take Romney over Clinton, if that were the ultimate choice. I have no problem with having a woman as president, but I feel that Hillary is simply too antagonistic and polarizing to sufficiently unite Congress into getting things done. As an Arkansan, I sincerely ask that people stop voting for Huckabee, though. The only thing he's really effective at is telling people what they want to hear. He was a terrible governor and would make a terrible president.
 
siamesedreamer said:
Just curious as to what you or Stoney think it does for Affirmative Action?
Click to expand...

If the debate is brought up on a large scale again? I honestly would not hope to see that. I think that an Obama win would be partially subdued a bit if we all got back into that argument. Nevertheless, I would expect the situation to divide people on the typical lines still, you certainly won't find many blacks just turning their opinion on it just because of Obama's successes (And I'm not saying this would be bad, like I said, the racial situation in this country is more dynamic then just "We have a black president"), the white liberals may end up finally giving up on it however. Anti-AA sentiment would be stronger then ever....for the wrong reasons. For the record, support for AA right now, also usually seems to be for the wrong reasons, from what I've witnessed at least.
 
God's Beard said:
If Clinton loses the nomination, what are the chances of Huckabee reaching across party borders to pick her up as a running-mate? Is something like that even possible? Just some rediculous thought I had.
Click to expand...

The vice president used to be the guy that lost....meaning, if this was back in the day, John Kerry would be vice president now.

I forget when they changed this.
 
Liara T'Soni said:
The vice president used to be the guy that lost....meaning, if this was back in the day, John Kerry would be vice president now.

I forget when they changed this.
Click to expand...
like 200 years ago
 
avatar299 said:
Sounds like you want this to be a race issue.You underestimate most of middle America. They don't care, and the # of racists in this country are enough to have any effect on the general election.
Click to expand...

I think you've misinterpreted what I've been trying to say.

I think that it's clear that Obama can win this....heck, right now, if the election was TODAY, I'd pick him over every single republican.
 
thekad said:
Good point.
Click to expand...
Ancedotal evidence is shit. It's always been shit, It always will be shit.

If the best you got is "I met a racist white guy with a bush sticker on his car" than I ain't buying it. Racist parties in america don't have the power to be significant, and republicans have been working for the latino vote for the past decade. I'm sorry, but I don't believe all voting racists are republicans, they are in both parties."

Also I'm arguing this under the assumption held between us that all racist people in this country are white.

Liara T'Soni said:
I think you've misinterpreted what I've been trying to say.

I think that it's clear that Obama can win this....heck, right now, if the election was TODAY, I'd pick him over every single republican.
Click to expand...
Obama is the only person i would vote for today.
 
Cheebs said:
But the war was not the top concern and has been barely even a topic for months.
Click to expand...

How did Barack win then? Because he had a banner behind him 100% of the time that said "Change"? He has been portrayed as some Washington outsider who is going to clean up the mess but the man is lacking any credible experience and seems to be a pawn to the party...endorsing Holy Joe over Ned Lamont for starters.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

When and if Barack gets the Presidency I do not expect anything to change.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070801obama,1,3928789.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

His equation of 9/11 hijackers to some anti-american people up in some mountains is laughable and is a page right from Giuliani/Bush.
 
On affirmative action, Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate, said he thinks that someday when his two young daughters apply to college, they “should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged” and there is nothing wrong with that.

“I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and been brought up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed,” he added. “There are a lot of African-American kids who are still struggling.”

Obama said that “if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, that affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society.”
Click to expand...

It sounds fair to me. Give preference based on the situation, not on ancestry.
 
Liara T'Soni said:
The vice president used to be the guy that lost....meaning, if this was back in the day, John Kerry would be vice president now.

I forget when they changed this.
Click to expand...

1804.

I actually wouldn't mind it going back to that way.
 
ErasureAcer said:
if Clinton or Edwards had actually voted against the war and its funding I'm sure either one would have won. Instead Barack took first place.

His campaign is blah if you ask me. I haven't heard one detail of what he would do as President other than putting tanks in Pakistan(why??).

Whoever the Dem nominnee is, he/she better pick a good VP(someone progressive) or I'll be voting for Bloomberg or some other 3rd party candidate.
Click to expand...

You should actively seek out information so you can make informed decisions. This would have led you to his website.

Here you go:

Civil Rights
Pre-K to 12 Education
College Affordability Plan
Energy Fact Sheet
Ethics
Faith
Homeland Security
Immigration
Iraq

Hell, just go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
 
ErasureAcer said:
How did Barack win then? Because he had a banner behind him 100% of the time that said "Change"? He has been portrayed as some Washington outsider who is going to clean up the mess but the man is lacking any credible experience and seems to be a pawn to the party...endorsing Holy Joe over Ned Lamont for starters.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

When and if Barack gets the Presidency I do not expect anything to change.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070801obama,1,3928789.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

His equation of 9/11 hijackers to some anti-american people up in some mountains is laughable and is a page right from Giuliani/Bush.
Click to expand...
In defense of Obama, he has been more upfront and loud about leaving Iraq and deescalating the military than Ron Paul is. He isn't going to do anything serious when it comes military intervention, and for some people that alone will win him their votes.

His right on every issue Americans want to hear, his image is tainted, but not to tainted to become a joke, and he has a built in fanbase in the black community,and after seeing Iowa the female community.

You better read that website Erasure. That guy is your next president.
 
ErasureAcer said:
When and if Barack gets the Presidency I do not expect anything to change.
Click to expand...

You could say that about anybody really.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070801obama,1,3928789.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

His equation of 9/11 hijackers to some anti-american people up in some mountains is laughable and is a page right from Giuliani/Bush.
Click to expand...

I think you're really misunderstanding the quote. From your own link:

[Obama threatened] he would use military force against Al Qaeda operatives hiding in tribal areas of Pakistan if that nation did not move more aggressively against them first.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with that position? Why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Sailor moon Thread
2
84
379
uncreativename replied
Unhinged Bios Official Thread
10
483
SJRB replied
  • Locked
Can we has back our Iran thread?
2 3
100
2K
LearnandBurn replied
NBA Thread 2026: There will be ballin'
2 3 4 5 6
257
4K
German Shocks replied
2025 | The yearly positive thread
3
407
DKehoe replied
Top Bottom