US political nonsense

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:56 am

prettysenshi wrote:
MixedMyth wrote:Update: Squeee! Obama took the DC, Maryland, and Virginia dem primaries!
I really think its gonna be between Obama and McCain at this point.

I would like that to be the case, but while Obama is in the lead, his lead is no greater than Clinton's was earlier, and the constituents that voted Obama in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, were the ones that he has usually gotten - there hasn't been a wholesale change in voting style.

If Obama wins Texas and/or Ohio, I would feel much better.

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:57 am

Komiyan wrote:Why would staying fix it?

How would creating a power vacuum fix things?

Paul Escobar · Post by **Paul Escobar** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:23 am

rkolter wrote:
prettysenshi wrote:
MixedMyth wrote:Update: Squeee! Obama took the DC, Maryland, and Virginia dem primaries!
I really think its gonna be between Obama and McCain at this point.
I would like that to be the case, but while Obama is in the lead, his lead is no greater than Clinton's was earlier, and the constituents that voted Obama in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, were the ones that he has usually gotten - there hasn't been a wholesale change in voting style.

Huh. On this side of the Atlantic, all the media are reporting that Obama won by a huge margin and got votes from "demographic groups" that so far have supported Clinton. Example: this BBC report, towards the end.

BTW, going by this thread, there seems to be big support for Obama. Are webcomickers overwhelmingly Democrats?

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:37 am

Paul Escobar wrote:
rkolter wrote:
prettysenshi wrote: I really think its gonna be between Obama and McCain at this point.
I would like that to be the case, but while Obama is in the lead, his lead is no greater than Clinton's was earlier, and the constituents that voted Obama in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, were the ones that he has usually gotten - there hasn't been a wholesale change in voting style.
Huh. On this side of the Atlantic, all the media are reporting that Obama won by a huge margin and got votes from "demographic groups" that so far have supported Clinton. Example: this BBC report, towards the end.

Well, he did win by a huge margin in those three locations. But Democrats allocate delagates by giving some directly to the winner, and allocating the rest by percentage. So even though Obama won handily, Clinton still got a few delagates out of it.

BTW, going by this thread, there seems to be big support for Obama. Are webcomickers overwhelmingly Democrats?

I would suspect this is true. I don't vote a straight party ticket; I tend to prefer Republicans, but lately they've taken a real turn for the worse. I'm voting Obama if he takes the Democratic nomination. Otherwise, I'm voting McCain. Unless he takes Huckabee as his VP. That might convince me to vote Clinton.

Yeahduff · Post by **Yeahduff** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:20 am

Obama's in good shape right now, but his sweep these last three days are more a sign of momentum than a huge point-scoring endeavor. Texas and Ohio are the real battlegrounds, and it ain't gonna be easy for him.

The thing with McCain is he's a military guy, but he wants it done right. Fact of the matter is it takes about 23 years to effectively establish a stable democracy, and McCain's committed to seeing Iraq through. As recently as this summer, though, he supported an immediate withdrawal, simply because he felt if we weren't gonna do it right, there was no point in being there at all. His opinions about Iran worry me, and I really hope he's just trying to be the tough guy candidate. At least he's not Bush or Giuliani.

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:06 am

yeahduff wrote:The thing with McCain is he's a military guy, but he wants it done right. Fact of the matter is it takes about 23 years to effectively establish a stable democracy, and McCain's committed to seeing Iraq through.

What are you basing this on? 23 seems a bit arbitrary to me, but I'd be interested to hear why you think that's about how long it will take.

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:06 am

KWill wrote:How would creating a power vacuum fix things?

Exactly, it's an unanswerable situation. Things will go badly either way, but I can't help but want to see something actually *done* instead of sitting in there and hoping.

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:14 am

Komiyan wrote:Exactly, it's an unanswerable situation. Things will go badly either way, but I can't help but want to see something actually *done* instead of sitting in there and hoping.

I wouldn't say unanswerable, but the right answer is hard to find. Simply leaving before there is a unified and stable authority that can and will protect the Iraqis indiscriminately comes across as abandoning the Iraqis to the mess we created.

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:28 am

I don't see there being an unified and unbiased authority while the place is still occupied by foreign armies though. Simply their presence is enough to prolong the disturbances. Anything that gets put in place would probably get overturned as soon as they leave, which they eventually *have* to.

Yeahduff · Post by **Yeahduff** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:31 am

KWill wrote:
yeahduff wrote:The thing with McCain is he's a military guy, but he wants it done right. Fact of the matter is it takes about 23 years to effectively establish a stable democracy, and McCain's committed to seeing Iraq through.
What are you basing this on? 23 seems a bit arbitrary to me, but I'd be interested to hear why you think that's about how long it will take.

Admittedly, that's hearsay. But the people I know who study this kind of thing say that's how long it takes. Our current situation seems consistent with this.

I have a bleak outlook on the situation, but I don't think now is the time to leave. Violence has gone down for one reason or the other, and the government has some time to actually get themselves together. Of course, if they can't, our extended time there is wasted.

In either case, America will always have a pressence in Iraq from now on.

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:43 am

yeahduff wrote:
KWill wrote:
yeahduff wrote:The thing with McCain is he's a military guy, but he wants it done right. Fact of the matter is it takes about 23 years to effectively establish a stable democracy, and McCain's committed to seeing Iraq through.
What are you basing this on? 23 seems a bit arbitrary to me, but I'd be interested to hear why you think that's about how long it will take.
Admittedly, that's hearsay. But the people I know who study this kind of thing say that's how long it takes. Our current situation seems consistent with this.

It's not the amount of time that irked me, but the concept that you could come to a conclusion as to how long it takes to create a functioning and stable democracy in a country. I'd guess it depends too much on factors such as democratic traditions, levels of corruption, or ethnic rivalries for there to be a uniform amount of time required rather than determining the probable time on a case by case basis.

I have a bleak outlook on the situation, but I don't think now is the time to leave. Violence has gone down for one reason or the other, and the government has some time to actually get themselves together. Of course, if they can't, our extended time there is wasted.

In either case, America will always have a pressence in Iraq from now on.

Undoubtedly. It's too good a chance to pass up from a strategic point of view: Forces near a major oil source and in close proximity to then new Public Enemy #1, Iran.

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:46 am

Enjoy your new empire then :S

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:52 am

Komiyan wrote:Why would staying fix it?

Because we're America! We can fix anything as long as we poke at it long enough!

Legion of Boom · Post by **Legion of Boom** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:56 am

Komiyan wrote:Enjoy your new empire then :S

Call us next time Paris or London is burning.

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:59 am

Komiyan wrote:Enjoy your new empire then :S

I'd rather we didn't. Unfortunately, the clique around PNAC thinks otherwise... =(

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:01 am

Legion of Boom wrote:
Komiyan wrote:Enjoy your new empire then :S
Call us next time Paris or London is burning.

Oh you're right, America has fixed all our problems ever so I can't even slightly criticise it. That's cool then.

We suck too, y'know. Pretty much everyone in this situation is a dick.

Yeahduff · Post by **Yeahduff** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:08 am

KWill wrote:
yeahduff wrote:
KWill wrote: What are you basing this on? 23 seems a bit arbitrary to me, but I'd be interested to hear why you think that's about how long it will take.
Admittedly, that's hearsay. But the people I know who study this kind of thing say that's how long it takes. Our current situation seems consistent with this.
It's not the amount of time that irked me, but the concept that you could come to a conclusion as to how long it takes to create a functioning and stable democracy in a country. I'd guess it depends too much on factors such as democratic traditions, levels of corruption, or ethnic rivalries for there to be a uniform amount of time required rather than determining the probable time on a case by case basis.

Well, obviously we're speaking generally in a best case scenario kinda way. The point mostly is if you really think you're gonna do this, expect to invest at least this much time.

I have a bleak outlook on the situation, but I don't think now is the time to leave. Violence has gone down for one reason or the other, and the government has some time to actually get themselves together. Of course, if they can't, our extended time there is wasted.

In either case, America will always have a pressence in Iraq from now on.
Undoubtedly. It's too good a chance to pass up from a strategic point of view: Forces near a major oil source and in close proximity to then new Public Enemy #1, Iran.

Treaty negotiations are going as we speak, without the consent of congress.

Yes, that is illegal.

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:19 am

yeahduff wrote:Well, obviously we're speaking generally in a best case scenario kinda way. The point mostly is if you really think you're gonna do this, expect to invest at least this much time.

Indeed. The notion that a functioning democracy was going to spring up over night in a country that had been under switching dictatorial rulers until then was hopelessly naive. That that assessment turns out to be right is little consolation over the embitterment that so many people bought the crap when it was set in front of them.

Treaty negotiations are going as we speak, without the consent of congress.

Yes, that is illegal.

It'll be fun when they name a ship after the Shrub in years far in the future and all this crap will come bubbling back to the surface...

Grabmygoblin · Post by **Grabmygoblin** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:08 am

KWill wrote:
grabmygoblin wrote:so my mom was trying to explain the slight positive aspects of the superdelegate system, mainly that if it were revealed near the end of the primary race that the leading candidate were a child molester or something that the party could still nominate an alternative viable candidate.
Or someone like Huey Long.

eh? maybe I'm just misreading, but why do you think Long messed with kids?

Paul Escobar wrote: BTW, going by this thread, there seems to be big support for Obama. Are webcomickers overwhelmingly Democrats?

democrats, maybe not, but liberal leaning, almost certainly.

Komiyan wrote:Enjoy your new empire then :S

stop and think for a sec; it's not new. DC pricks have been closing domestic military bases for 40 years as they've quietly established overseas bases one after another. the cold war for those sadists was just warm-up.

people dismiss the phrase "military-industrial complex" as paranoid mutterings, but Eisenhower was the first to use it, when he left office and gave a grave speech warning about it. (he also pretty much established it in his time in office, but that's another topic.)

KWill · Post by **KWill** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:25 am

grabmygoblin wrote:
KWill wrote:
grabmygoblin wrote:so my mom was trying to explain the slight positive aspects of the superdelegate system, mainly that if it were revealed near the end of the primary race that the leading candidate were a child molester or something that the party could still nominate an alternative viable candidate.
Or someone like Huey Long.
eh? maybe I'm just misreading, but why do you think Long messed with kids?

I'd say his dictatorial and populist tendencies qualify for the "or something."