More political stuff...

smartcam

smartcam

Member
So, has anyone heard the threats that if B. Obama doesn't get the nomination for President there will be riots in the streets? Now I know that one person can't say what a group of people are going to do. But, one person can make suggestions. Has anyone else heard this...and if so...who was it?
Thanks
 
I wouldn't think there'd be rioting. What I would see happening is massive voter apathy and self-disenfrachisment (sp?).

So many people are so caught up with and devoted to this guy (he is easy to like) that if for some reason Hillary pulls it out or the super delagates put her over the top, I think a good portion of the Democrat base may just throw up their hands and give up.

There will be yet more allegations of "election stealing", except it will all be within the same party this time.

If he DOES get the nomination, I'm not sure how many Hillary folks will support him either. A lot will, to be sure, but there's going to be a lot of hard feeling on that side, too, mainly because they (Hillary fans) don't think Obama has been getting the scruitny Hillary and other Dems have.

One thing's for certain, the longer this mess goes on, the more damage and more fractured the party becomes. I think one of them should have bowed out by now in the name of unifying the party, but this is a good illustration of just how powerful the ego of politicans can be....




Wanna know what would really throw a monkey wrench into things? Bloomberg getting in during the summer. That would effectively split the Dem vote for good...
 
Richmond, Virginia mayor Douglas Wilder said on Face the Nation, that if the Super Delagates interfered with the nomination, that there would be a riot at the convention.
Take what you will from that statement, but I hardly think that it can be implied that there will be rioting in the streets.
 
Doug Wilder is a hyperbolic old fool. That's a dangerous statement for a public figure to make. He should know better.
 
I believe he said, "riot" in meaning that a lot of people would be upset.

There are those that want to push the impression that a specific ethnic group will take to the streets and burn and pillage. I suppose you must think about that for a bit and wonder where that came from.
 
I'm sure that's what he really meant...
Wilder is a Democrat. And people hear what they want to hear. I'm sure that some would naturally claim that the republicans are spinning it into a would-be "riot"...But it IS what he said. I think it was a poor choice of words.
 
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been uncharacteristically (sp?) quiet about Mr. Obama's candidacy. The longer this goes on between Hillary and Barack the more likely one group of constituents is gonna be really, really pissed at the end result.

I don't wanna see a repeat of the '68 convention in Chicago that's for sure.
 
It seems Obama's campaign is claiming victory in Texas. Since it's not a winner-take-all, I'm not sure why folks are so worried about being the "winner", but there sure seems to be a lot of fighting left to go.
 
I just can't believe John McCain is the Republican Nominee. Wasn't he all but dead in the water 6 months ago!? What a final four: McCain, Huckabee, Obama and Clinton. Imagine the turnout if "None of the Above" were to be allowed in the voting booth?!

I agree with SVP, the primary process is a joke on both sides of the aisle.
 
Hillary Clinton? I mean seriously!?! She was a the reason why the Republican Party won back congress in 1994...are we all so shortsighted that we don't remember the colossal failures of the Clinton Presidency? He was technically impeached! Her skills and abilities so closely resemble those of President Carter's that I imagine her Presidency ending up the same way. So bogged down in the details and her inability to form a coalition that the world and economy practically burn down at her feet.

Now, admittedly my political views are FAR from normal. But there is one guy who didn't campaign and/or convince any other member of congress to vote for the war in Iraq and he is who I will be supporting this fall.

I deeply respect John McCain and I would have voted for him in 2000....but the religious right had their way with the Republican party and we are where we are. But Obama truly is change...in name, style, and image. Hillary Clinton is a lot of false hope on ideas that will unify the opposition against her.
 
backfocus5 said:
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been uncharacteristically (sp?) quiet about Mr. Obama's candidacy.
Click to expand...


Two reasons for that.

1) Obama isn't/wasn't part of the Civil Rights Era "in crowd". He's not part of their club, and as such, they don't support him. Obama (probably) doesn't feel that he's beholden to these guys, and Jackson and Sharpton and their ilk no doubt resent him for it. Look how much crap was thrown on John Conyers for breaking away from Hillary and supporting Obama...

2) It's a generational thing. Jackson and Sharpton and Clinton are all Baby Boomers. Obama just barely fits into that league, and that's a BIG barely. The Boomers don't see him as one of them, and the Xer's and Yers' see him as being "old enough" but not "too old", as opposed to Hillary, which a lot of people in their 30's see as being as old as their mother...


I think the guy is one of the most charismatic speakers out there... But that's it. He's a facade. He looks good, sounds impressive and makes people watching him feel like he's The Answer. But when you actually think about what he says, and wonder how in the Hell we're supposed to pay for all the things he wants to do, it starts to fall apart. Taxing our way to prosperity? Free healthcare for everyone (without drastic tax increases and massive bueracrasy?)? Dialouge with terrorist sponsoring nations? That and the fact that aside from 14 months in the Senate and a career as a local politican in the midwest, he doesn't really have any "executive branch" experience.

He's like a cubic zirconia. From across the room he looks like a diamond.
 
The best Presidents this country has had were all outsiders...Washington! James Polk! Lincoln! Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and even Ronald Reagan(if you swing that way). Seriously...you don't have to be a Washington insider to be President. And Im not expecting the next President to pass legislation...The next President needs to change the worlds perception of us. And get us out of the 1 TRILLION dollar economic mess that we are in.
 
The next President needs to change the worlds perception of us.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more! I think there are far too many people who are naive to the fact that in a mere 8 years "w" managed to destroy all of the goodwill we as a nation built up over the previous 200+ years.

Just like the value of our dollar, the value of our name (America) has fallen fast.
 
Um, that's being a little dramatic, don't you think?

We've monkeywrenched plenty of things in the world over the last two centuries; Slave trade? Monroe Doctrine? White Man's Burden? Indian Reservations? FDR's anti-Semitism turning a blind eye to the beginnings of the Holocaust? Tuskeegee syphiliss experiments? Japanese internment camps? The Baby Boom Generation? Michael Jackson? I could go on and on, but I think you see the trend here...

Of course, the last 8 years haven't been a total wash in the eyes of the world, either. But don't take my word for it. Ask Indonisians and Tai's what they think of the U.S. Navy and Red Cross. Or people infected with HIV in many African nations about what they think of Bush and the U.S.

To say that "W" has singlehandely managed to destroy two hundred years worth of goodwill in 8 years only makes you sound like a fool.

That "two hundred years" of good will wasn't as "good" as you think. I'd say you're the naive one.

Even so, our pluses still outweigh our minuses, and that trend will continue for as long as we're the U.S.A.

If the country sucks that bad and is so hated by the rest of the world, then why in the Hell are so many people trying to get here?

And further, have you looked at Europe lately? And you think WE have problems here? LOL!!!!!!
 
pre-set said:
Um, that's being a little dramatic, don't you think?

We've monkeywrenched plenty of things in the world over the last two centuries; Slave trade? Monroe Doctrine? White Man's Burden? Indian Reservations? FDR's anti-Semitism turning a blind eye to the beginnings of the Holocaust? Tuskeegee syphiliss experiments? Japanese internment camps? The Baby Boom Generation? Michael Jackson? I could go on and on, but I think you see the trend here...

Of course, the last 8 years haven't been a total wash in the eyes of the world, either. But don't take my word for it. Ask Indonisians and Tai's what they think of the U.S. Navy and Red Cross. Or people infected with HIV in many African nations about what they think of Bush and the U.S.

To say that "W" has singlehandely managed to destroy two hundred years worth of goodwill in 8 years only makes you sound like a fool.

That "two hundred years" of good will wasn't as "good" as you think. I'd say you're the naive one.

Even so, our pluses still outweigh our minuses, and that trend will continue for as long as we're the U.S.A.

If the country sucks that bad and is so hated by the rest of the world, then why in the Hell are so many people trying to get here?

And further, have you looked at Europe lately? And you think WE have problems here? LOL!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Jesus. Don't blow this out of proportion. We are still the United States of America. I didn't say W sent us back to Third World status! Of course people will still want to come to America. I once watched a documentary on Discovery-Times by Thomas L. Friedmann called, "Searching for the Roots of 9/11." Great piece of journalism. See it if you can. Anyway, there was a part in that piece where he speaks to a class of well-educated, early-20s Muslims. The consensus amongst that group was that while they were unhappy with what they thought America was and stood for, it was still a place where they all wanted to be educated...because a "Western" education was invaluable in their world.

And sure the good ol' U.S. of A. is still doing amazing things abroad. ****, we'd better be. Afterall, we're everyone's big brother on the block. We've got the resources - though I might argue we'd have even more resources given a few billion dollars here or there had it not been spent trying to "westernize" Iraq. And I'm not denying that our pluses outweigh our minuses. But, there is an inherent problem with such a statement - particularly that word still; it implies that the gap [between our pluses and minuses] perhaps isn't what it used to be.

Also, I never said Bush "singlehandedly" destroyed our 200 years of goodwill. Lord knows even this cowboy can't take credit for all of our problems. But, he and his cronies sure have tried.

As for Europe...well, that's Europe. Let's not deflect attention from our own woes by spotlighting the woes of others. That's like Johnny Doe coming home from school with a report card full of Bs and Cs. You were hoping for As and Bs. Their response: at least I didn't get all Fs like Janey Doe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top