So san4, what's your plan? The McCain stay in Iraq for 100 years one?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Republicans cross over in Virginia to vote for … Obama
Your reading is very selective.san4 wrote:
Is that a parody or is it real?
The problem with that so-called "plan" is that there are irreconcilable goals among the players in Iraq. Talking won't make any of them abandon goals that are critical for their survival. If the US withdrew all combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, the following things would happen:
1. Shiite militias would massacre Sunnis. President Obama would not be able to stop it because there is still too much hatred and suspicion between the two groups. Leading militias would also be a way for ambitious Shiites to gain recognition and power. And good luck convincing Shiites to share oil revenues with the Sunnis. Who gives away money? Shiite-Sunni violence would hurt US interests because the world would be horrified that the US would let it happen, and the ethnic conflict could drag in Saudi Arabia and Iran on opposite sides.
2. Al Qaeda would re-establish itself in Iraq. With US protection gone, the Sunnis would welcome Al Qaeda as an ally against the Shiite militias. Al Qaeda wouldn't respond to President Obama's diplomacy, and Sunnis facing death squads wouldn't either.
3. Iran's influence in Iraq would dramatically increase. Iran might even openly bring in troops. President Obama would not be able to convince Iran to let chaos reign on its border.
If Obama's "plan" for a withdrawal from Iraq involves phrases like "aggressive diplomacy," "taking responsibility" and "supporting reconciliation," that's just another way of saying he has no plan. McCain will eat him alive.
1. The hate has been going on for thousands of years. How hard is it to figure out that a lasting peace in a nation must be earned by the inhabitants of said nation. That is the only way they will respect the work that goes into securing peace. Also, did you read this? :"and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven."
2. If al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
3. Iran must be dealt with unilaterally, like we are doing right now. Israel will not let Iran dominate the region. They have too much to lose.
It is time we become more inclusive. Americans have severe domestic problems developing at home.Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis..
McCain's plan, as he has said, is to stay a hundred years if thats what it takes. Americans are war weary (see the last election results). If McCain keeps talking about a war without end I guarantee you it is him that will get eaten alive.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
He doesnt actually have to carry out his plan, he just has to have a realistic one to tell voters (isnt that what all the other presidents do?)san4 wrote:
Is that a parody or is it real?Kmarion wrote:
All you hear from the talking heads now is the only thing Obama is talking about is change. They say he has no substance or "plan" for change. It's actually pretty easy to find out how he plans to do the things he is talking about.Barack Obama's Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
The problem with that so-called "plan" is that there are irreconcilable goals among the players in Iraq. Talking won't make any of them abandon goals that are critical for their survival. If the US withdrew all combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, the following things would happen:
1. Shiite militias would massacre Sunnis. President Obama would not be able to stop it because there is still too much hatred and suspicion between the two groups. Leading militias would also be a way for ambitious Shiites to gain recognition and power. And good luck convincing Shiites to share oil revenues with the Sunnis. Who gives away money? Shiite-Sunni violence would hurt US interests because the world would be horrified that the US would let it happen, and the ethnic conflict could drag in Saudi Arabia and Iran on opposite sides.
2. Al Qaeda would re-establish itself in Iraq. With US protection gone, the Sunnis would welcome Al Qaeda as an ally against the Shiite militias. Al Qaeda wouldn't respond to President Obama's diplomacy, and Sunnis facing death squads wouldn't either.
3. Iran's influence in Iraq would dramatically increase. Iran might even openly bring in troops. President Obama would not be able to convince Iran to let chaos reign on its border.
If Obama's "plan" for a withdrawal from Iraq involves phrases like "aggressive diplomacy," "taking responsibility" and "supporting reconciliation," that's just another way of saying he has no plan. McCain will eat him alive.
Last edited by Locoloki (2008-02-13 21:04:46)
I don't think my reading is selective because, except for the response to an Al Qaeda resurgence, all I see in Obama's plan is diplomacy. He doesn't take the consequences of withdrawal seriously. He will be asked hard questions in televised debates:Kmarion wrote:
Your reading is very selective.san4 wrote:
Is that a parody or is it real?
The problem with that so-called "plan" is that there are irreconcilable goals among the players in Iraq. Talking won't make any of them abandon goals that are critical for their survival. If the US withdrew all combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, the following things would happen:
1. Shiite militias would massacre Sunnis. President Obama would not be able to stop it because there is still too much hatred and suspicion between the two groups. Leading militias would also be a way for ambitious Shiites to gain recognition and power. And good luck convincing Shiites to share oil revenues with the Sunnis. Who gives away money? Shiite-Sunni violence would hurt US interests because the world would be horrified that the US would let it happen, and the ethnic conflict could drag in Saudi Arabia and Iran on opposite sides.
2. Al Qaeda would re-establish itself in Iraq. With US protection gone, the Sunnis would welcome Al Qaeda as an ally against the Shiite militias. Al Qaeda wouldn't respond to President Obama's diplomacy, and Sunnis facing death squads wouldn't either.
3. Iran's influence in Iraq would dramatically increase. Iran might even openly bring in troops. President Obama would not be able to convince Iran to let chaos reign on its border.
If Obama's "plan" for a withdrawal from Iraq involves phrases like "aggressive diplomacy," "taking responsibility" and "supporting reconciliation," that's just another way of saying he has no plan. McCain will eat him alive.
1. The hate has been going on for thousands of years. How hard is it to figure out that a lasting peace in a nation must be earned by the inhabitants of said nation. That is the only way they will respect the work that goes into securing peace. Also, did you read this? :"and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven."
2. If al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
3. Iran must be dealt with unilaterally, like we are doing right now. Israel will not let Iran dominate the region. They have too much to lose.It is time we become more inclusive. Americans have severe domestic problems developing at home.Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis..
McCain's plan, as he has said, is to stay a hundred years if thats what it takes. Americans are war weary (see the last election results). If McCain keeps talking about a war without end I guarantee you it is him that will get eaten alive.
1. How will Obama prevent a Sunni-Shiite civil war without troops? It's nice that Obama wants Iraqis inside their country to have a safe haven, but how in the world will he achieve that without US troops? I don't see the answers to these questions in Obama's plan, unless his answer is to engage in diplomacy. And if that's his answer, he'll have to explain how an international working group is going to get people to stop drilling holes in their enemies' heads.
No one is talking about making peace between the Sunnis and Shiites (except maybe Obama, who is being unrealistic). The goal is just to keep them from killing each other and sparking a regional conflict or a massive embarrassment for the US. There's no way to stop the massacre without troops in Iraq, and Obama is going to have to admit that on live television.
2. Finally some realism: if Al Qaeda tries to re-establish itself, Obama would use US troops to stop it. So he'd go back in with troops to stop Al Qaeda, but he wouldn't go back in with troops to stop a genocide? He's going to be very uncomfortable saying that in a televised debate.
3. Leaving Iraq would increase Iran's security and regional influence. Iran would be overjoyed to have an oil-rich ally on its border--and that would make it harder for the US to influence Iran's actions. How is Obama going to justify a withdrawal that makes Iran more powerful? His so-called plan does not acknowledge the fact that a withdrawal benefits Iran, but he is going to have to acknowledge that in the general election. It is going to hurt him because even the anti-war voters don't want to hear that.
McCain's advantage is that he is facing these horrible problems. I don't like his answer either, but it is the only realistic answer at this point. The war was an unbelievable mistake. It will burden the US for a long time. The thought of keeping US troops in Iraq for decades is awful, but the alternative is worse.
They will have to learn to live in peace. There has already been somewhat of an "awakening". A foreign presence will not force people to get along. It's very simple logic. The alternative is an indefinite troop presence. I feel that this kind of idea weakens us at home and drains financial resources that are needed to protect our borders and provide real security. We need to enlist the support of our allies in the region (Like Turkey), it's their backyard. A responsible withdraw is not completely turning your back. It's a way to encourage the people of Iraq to step up and take control of their country.
You seemed determined to portray Obama as someone who plans on abandoning all efforts in the region. Not only has he reiterated the need to focus on Afghanistan, he has also spoke of taking a harder stance with Pakistan.
You also keep going on about Obama having to face tough questions on live TV. My only suggestion to you is to pick up a newspaper or read any poll that has been conducted over the last year.
Most Americans (and Iraqis) want a troop withdrawal.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01721.html
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 … ithdrawal/
You are the minority, Presidential candidates tend to focus on gaining the majority of votes.
You seemed determined to portray Obama as someone who plans on abandoning all efforts in the region. Not only has he reiterated the need to focus on Afghanistan, he has also spoke of taking a harder stance with Pakistan.
You also keep going on about Obama having to face tough questions on live TV. My only suggestion to you is to pick up a newspaper or read any poll that has been conducted over the last year.
Most Americans (and Iraqis) want a troop withdrawal.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01721.html
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 … ithdrawal/
You are the minority, Presidential candidates tend to focus on gaining the majority of votes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I agree 100% that the US has to resume working with its allies (and enemies) around the world. I also agree that Afghanistan and Pakistan are serious problems and Iraq distracts the US from dealing with them. I also agree that the only alternative is an indefinite troop presence. I'm just trying to get an answer to these questions: Does Obama think he can prevent a civil war in Iraq without using US troops? Or is he willing to tolerate a civil war?Kmarion wrote:
They will have to learn to live in peace. There has already been somewhat of an "awakening". A foreign presence will not force people to get along. It's very simple logic. The alternative is an indefinite troop presence. I feel that this kind of idea weakens us at home and drains financial resources that are needed to protect our borders and provide real security. We need to enlist the support of our allies in the region (Like Turkey), it's their backyard. A responsible withdraw is not completely turning your back. It's a way to encourage the people of Iraq to step up and take control of their country.
You seemed determined to portray Obama as someone who plans on abandoning all efforts in the region. Not only has he reiterated the need to focus on Afghanistan, he has also spoke of taking a harder stance with Pakistan.
You also keep going on about Obama having to face tough questions on live TV. My only suggestion to you is to pick up a newspaper or read any poll that has been conducted over the last year.
Most Americans (and Iraqis) want a troop withdrawal.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01721.html
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 … ithdrawal/
You are the minority, Presidential candidates tend to focus on gaining the majority of votes.
Obama has gotten away with vague answers to these questions--like working with our allies in the region, talking with Iran and Syria, and encouraging Iraqis to work together--only because he has not faced a candidate who supports a continued troop presence. Public opinion won't be kind to Obama when it becomes clear that his plan for stopping a genocide is vague and unrealistic. Or that he's willing to tolerate a civil war in the middle east.
I agree that a foreign presence won't force people to get along, and that it's a big financial drain. I just don't think Obama has clearly acknowledged the risks and costs of a troop withdrawal.
Little girl waving flag incorrectly will be a new meme
I hear what you are saying and understand. I was saying the same thing not too long ago. I've even made post like this to illustrate my disgust. But the fact is we are weakening ourselves while trying to force a decayed civilization into modern times. Not only are we losing life, we are essentially borrowing money from China to pay for the war. Giving the Chinese that kind of leverage is a major problem.san4 wrote:
I agree 100% that the US has to resume working with its allies (and enemies) around the world. I also agree that Afghanistan and Pakistan are serious problems and Iraq distracts the US from dealing with them. I also agree that the only alternative is an indefinite troop presence. I'm just trying to get an answer to these questions: Does Obama think he can prevent a civil war in Iraq without using US troops? Or is he willing to tolerate a civil war?Kmarion wrote:
They will have to learn to live in peace. There has already been somewhat of an "awakening". A foreign presence will not force people to get along. It's very simple logic. The alternative is an indefinite troop presence. I feel that this kind of idea weakens us at home and drains financial resources that are needed to protect our borders and provide real security. We need to enlist the support of our allies in the region (Like Turkey), it's their backyard. A responsible withdraw is not completely turning your back. It's a way to encourage the people of Iraq to step up and take control of their country.
You seemed determined to portray Obama as someone who plans on abandoning all efforts in the region. Not only has he reiterated the need to focus on Afghanistan, he has also spoke of taking a harder stance with Pakistan.
You also keep going on about Obama having to face tough questions on live TV. My only suggestion to you is to pick up a newspaper or read any poll that has been conducted over the last year.
Most Americans (and Iraqis) want a troop withdrawal.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01721.html
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 … ithdrawal/
You are the minority, Presidential candidates tend to focus on gaining the majority of votes.
Obama has gotten away with vague answers to these questions--like working with our allies in the region, talking with Iran and Syria, and encouraging Iraqis to work together--only because he has not faced a candidate who supports a continued troop presence. Public opinion won't be kind to Obama when it becomes clear that his plan for stopping a genocide is vague and unrealistic. Or that he's willing to tolerate a civil war in the middle east.
I agree that a foreign presence won't force people to get along, and that it's a big financial drain. I just don't think Obama has clearly acknowledged the risks and costs of a troop withdrawal.
The best we could have ever done in Iraq was to give them an opportunity. I feel we have done this the last five years. We have paid with our lives, we have paid with our wallets. The Iraqi government must feel the need to reconcile themselves. They are going to decide their own future whether we like it or not.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Why should he prevent it? The natural progression is an open civil war, a badly needed one at that. Forcing your political will upon 'Iraqis' whose only allegiance is to their sect or tribe is just delaying the inevitable and perhaps making it worse. Oh and he won't be the first and he certainly won't be the last western leader not to have 'prevented a genocide'...san4 wrote:
I agree 100% that the US has to resume working with its allies (and enemies) around the world. I also agree that Afghanistan and Pakistan are serious problems and Iraq distracts the US from dealing with them. I also agree that the only alternative is an indefinite troop presence. I'm just trying to get an answer to these questions: Does Obama think he can prevent a civil war in Iraq without using US troops? Or is he willing to tolerate a civil war?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-14 08:36:54)
this is kind of unrelated but did anyone watch the Roger Clemens hearing on tv? Out of all 50 states in America, all 50's majority believed Mcnamee was telling the truth. In the hearing however, all the Republicans sided with Roger Clemens, and all the Democrats believed Mcnamee. So are all Republicans snakes or what?
Innocent till proven guilty right? Hearsay is not enough, you need to have corroborating evidence. I wouldn't exactly call the DEM's the ideal picture of truth. They have a problem keeping their own "snakes" under control.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
A vague plan? Like "stay in Iraq for 100 years"? McCain's plan is simply more of the same, which, if you haven't noticed, hasn't worked thus far. At the very least Obama is going to try something different.san4 wrote:
I agree 100% that the US has to resume working with its allies (and enemies) around the world. I also agree that Afghanistan and Pakistan are serious problems and Iraq distracts the US from dealing with them. I also agree that the only alternative is an indefinite troop presence. I'm just trying to get an answer to these questions: Does Obama think he can prevent a civil war in Iraq without using US troops? Or is he willing to tolerate a civil war?
Obama has gotten away with vague answers to these questions--like working with our allies in the region, talking with Iran and Syria, and encouraging Iraqis to work together--only because he has not faced a candidate who supports a continued troop presence. Public opinion won't be kind to Obama when it becomes clear that his plan for stopping a genocide is vague and unrealistic. Or that he's willing to tolerate a civil war in the middle east.
I agree that a foreign presence won't force people to get along, and that it's a big financial drain. I just don't think Obama has clearly acknowledged the risks and costs of a troop withdrawal.
And re: Civil war in Iraq...that kind of seems to be the situation there at present. Not to mention that NO ONE wants us there. We don't want to be there. Iraqis don't want us to be there. Iraq's neighbors don't want us there.
Actually being in Iraq has worked thus far: There is little or no ethnic cleansing going on in Iraq. Iran's influence in Iraq has been quiet and cautious. And Al Qaeda's influence in Iraq has been more or less destroyed.Masques wrote:
A vague plan? Like "stay in Iraq for 100 years"? McCain's plan is simply more of the same, which, if you haven't noticed, hasn't worked thus far. At the very least Obama is going to try something different.
And re: Civil war in Iraq...that kind of seems to be the situation there at present. Not to mention that NO ONE wants us there. We don't want to be there. Iraqis don't want us to be there. Iraq's neighbors don't want us there.
If US troops leave, all three of these accomplishments will be undone: ethnic cleansing and mass murder will resume, Iran will openly get involved to help its allies gain power, and Al Qaeda will try to re-establish themselves. These are real costs. I haven't heard Obama (or Hillary) talk about these costs. McCain will force them to do so.
Yes, keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely is a vague plan in the long run. But it prevents unacceptable harm in the short run.
He should prevent it for two reasons: First, Americans will see their President letting a preventable genocide happen. It will look like Obama believes that human life is cheap. When important, high profile members of a society violate the society's fundamental values, those values are undermined. I don't think the world wants a heavily-armed United States where the citizens don't really mind seeing lots of foreigners die.CameronPoe wrote:
Why should he prevent it? The natural progression is an open civil war, a badly needed one at that. Forcing your political will upon 'Iraqis' whose only allegiance is to their sect or tribe is just delaying the inevitable and perhaps making it worse. Oh and he won't be the first and he certainly won't be the last western leader not to have 'prevented a genocide'...san4 wrote:
I agree 100% that the US has to resume working with its allies (and enemies) around the world. I also agree that Afghanistan and Pakistan are serious problems and Iraq distracts the US from dealing with them. I also agree that the only alternative is an indefinite troop presence. I'm just trying to get an answer to these questions: Does Obama think he can prevent a civil war in Iraq without using US troops? Or is he willing to tolerate a civil war?
Second, a civil war in Iraq could spread. Saudi Arabia has expressed concern about the fate of the Sunnis in Iraq, and even threatened to intervene on their behalf. At the same time, Iran clearly supports the Shiites there with money, sanctuary and military training. A proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia would quadruple the price of oil overnight. If Saudi Arabia's Shiite minority started rebelling, and Iran moved to protect them, there would be a worldwide economic catastrophe. Even isolationists hiding in their cozy burrows would be affected.
I am totally in agreement with every one of those points except one. The Iraq war weakens the US in all kinds of ways, and selling government debt to the Chinese (and US banks to the Arabs) will come back to haunt the US. I think we just disagree about whether it's acceptable to risk an Iraqi civil war, Iranian influence and the other likely consequences of a US troop withdrawal.Kmarion wrote:
I hear what you are saying and understand. I was saying the same thing not too long ago. I've even made post like this to illustrate my disgust. But the fact is we are weakening ourselves while trying to force a decayed civilization into modern times. Not only are we losing life, we are essentially borrowing money from China to pay for the war. Giving the Chinese that kind of leverage is a major problem.
The best we could have ever done in Iraq was to give them an opportunity. I feel we have done this the last five years. We have paid with our lives, we have paid with our wallets. The Iraqi government must feel the need to reconcile themselves. They are going to decide their own future whether we like it or not.
Um... the cleansing stopped because a lot of it already finished, and... we're paying off militias to keep certain areas stable. In other words, it's gotten pretty damn desperate.san4 wrote:
Actually being in Iraq has worked thus far: There is little or no ethnic cleansing going on in Iraq. Iran's influence in Iraq has been quiet and cautious. And Al Qaeda's influence in Iraq has been more or less destroyed.Masques wrote:
A vague plan? Like "stay in Iraq for 100 years"? McCain's plan is simply more of the same, which, if you haven't noticed, hasn't worked thus far. At the very least Obama is going to try something different.
And re: Civil war in Iraq...that kind of seems to be the situation there at present. Not to mention that NO ONE wants us there. We don't want to be there. Iraqis don't want us to be there. Iraq's neighbors don't want us there.
If US troops leave, all three of these accomplishments will be undone: ethnic cleansing and mass murder will resume, Iran will openly get involved to help its allies gain power, and Al Qaeda will try to re-establish themselves. These are real costs. I haven't heard Obama (or Hillary) talk about these costs. McCain will force them to do so.
Yes, keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely is a vague plan in the long run. But it prevents unacceptable harm in the short run.
We need to drop Iraq like a bad habit, and just keep some troops in Kuwait.
Possibly the strangest thing I've seen this week.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
With good reason?Spark wrote:
Possibly the strangest thing I've seen this week.
/conspiracy theory
Wow I'm tired. Sorry for being so off-topic.
You're looking at the American flag the wrong way around.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Little girl is waving american flag wrong way round
Guantanamo tbh
Guantanamo.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-02-17 01:18:57)
Holy shit, that top thing! There really IS a face there!{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
With good reason?Spark wrote:
Possibly the strangest thing I've seen this week.
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3609/girlsy1.jpg
/conspiracy theory
Wow I'm tired. Sorry for being so off-topic.
Yeah, I'm tired too.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
That's a fine democratic system you got there, make sure you try to export it to all countries so they can have a good time with it too.
I laughed so much at both of these posts.Mek-Izzle wrote:
That's a fine democratic system you got there, make sure you try to export it to all countries so they can have a good time with it too.
I suppose it's now possible that Obama could win NY - or at least come fairly close. Surely, if he did win, this would practically be "Game Over" for Clinton, would it not? And if he comes close, with the right PR this'll prove crushing for Clinton.
Oh, and it's in NY where Clinton is a Senator so... well, nothing's coincidental, right?
Can we steal votes from Obama? Yes we can!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyreg … ref=slogin
If this recounting trend continues, it’s possible that some delegates might move from the Clinton column to the Obama column. The question is, was this discrepancy evidence of corruption? The defense leaves much to be desired, basically resting on lower level corruption.Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.
That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.
City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly — and unofficially — on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.
In the Harlem district, for instance, where the primary night returns suggested a 141 to 0 sweep by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the vote now stands at 261 to 136. In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116.
If they’ll do that for themselves, why wouldn’t they do it for politicians who could end up in a position to buy them off?Mr. Koenig said he seriously doubted that anything underhanded was at work because local politicians care more about elections that matter specifically to them.
“They steal votes for elections like Assembly District leader, where people have a personal stake,” he said.
If low level dishonesty doesn’t work, try incompetence.
This is New York. Someone somewhere is capable of just about anything. And some of them have a history of doing just about anything.A number of political leaders also scoffed at the possibility that local politicians, even if they considered it vital that Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton prevail in the primary, were capable of even trying to hijack such a contest.
That speaks for itself.But Gordon J. Davis, a former New York City parks commissioner and an Obama poll watcher in the district, remained skeptical, even after being informed of the corrected count.
“First it was reported at 141 to 0, now it’s 261 to 136 in an Assembly district that went 12,000 to 8,000 for Barack,” Mr. Davis said on Friday.
“I was watching like a hawk, but how did I know the machine had a mind of its own?” he added. “And I speak as one who grew up on the South Side of Chicago where we delivered the margin of victory for John F. Kennedy at 4 in the morning.”
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What are pros and cons of Obama? I'm not from US but there's a lot of debate about him here where i live.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Republicans cross over in Virginia to vote for … Obama