Because until fairly recently (around the time of the creation of Israel) there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" as a distinct group from other Arabs in the region.
biccat wrote:Because until fairly recently (around the time of the creation of Israel) there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" as a distinct group from other Arabs in the region.
On that logic would that make the Israelis an invented people as well?
That's a stupid statement to make even if he was a rabid Zionist, he's still a historian. Palestinians are no more created than Syrians, Lebanonese, or Jordanians. He should have said stateless people represented by a terrorist organization at the international body that recognizes them as a people...
Like to point out:
Palestinian President
Says Newt doesn't know history
Claims Palestinians have been there for "thousands" of years.
Huffy wrote:On that logic would that make the Israelis an invented people as well?
I would imagine that most of the people living there would have a difficult time tracing their lineage to the original "People of Israel." However, there were "Israelis" in the area for quite some time.
There were differences between "Israelis" and the surrounding Arab population that are not present between Palestinians and the surrounding Arab population.
Kilkrazy wrote:Aren't all people invented, including Americans?
Americans in particular are an "invented people." Unless you're talking about Native Americans, but even then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have identified themselves as "Americans" before colonization.
biccat wrote:
There were differences between "Jews" and the surrounding Muslim population that are not present between Palestinian Muslims and the surrounding Muslim population.
Fixed, though there are significant differences between, say, Jordanian Muslims and Palestinian Muslims, especially now that nationality has taken a degree of hold.
Kilkrazy wrote:Aren't all people invented, including Americans?
Is it bad to have been invented?
Yes. I think the difference might be self invention vice the League of Nations Mandates. It's certainly not a bad thing to BE an invented people, it's certainly worked out for a majority of the Levants.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
There were differences between "Jews" and the surrounding Muslim population that are not present between Palestinian Muslims and the surrounding Muslim population.
Fixed, though there are significant differences between, say, Jordanian Muslims and Palestinian Muslims, especially now that nationality has taken a degree of hold.
biccat wrote:Because until fairly recently (around the time of the creation of Israel) there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" as a distinct group from other Arabs in the region.
On that logic would that make the Israelis an invented people as well?
Nationalism, mostly, but also the relative saturation of Sunni and Shi'a.
I'm pretty sure both Palestinians and Jordanians are predominantly Sunni. Even so nearly 1/3rd of Jordan's population is made up of "Palestinians" with Jordanian citizenship and access to Jordanian social services. Although what we are really talking about is the loss of Jordanian identity then, between the Iraqis and Palestinians fully half of Jordan's population isn't "Jordanian" but I digress.
I concede that nationalism divides Palestinians from Jordanians, but that is perhaps the only division between them.
Dunno what nations aren't "invented" really these days...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mind you, given that one particular candidate showed up in an gay-hating advertisement in the same jacket made famous by Brokeback Mountain, I'm not sure they're really taking this very seriously.
AustonT wrote:
I'm pretty sure both Palestinians and Jordanians are predominantly Sunni.
They are, but most people in the Caribbean are Protestant, yet we don't talk very much about how much the US has in common with Jamaica (except John Candy).
AustonT wrote:
Even so nearly 1/3rd of Jordan's population is made up of "Palestinians" with Jordanian citizenship and access to Jordanian social services. Although what we are really talking about is the loss of Jordanian identity then, between the Iraqis and Palestinians fully half of Jordan's population isn't "Jordanian" but I digress.
To be fair, the national distinction between Palestinians and Jordanians is tenuous at best, it exists because of Israel (though that doesn't mean they are at fault).
AustonT wrote:
I concede that nationalism divides Palestinians from Jordanians, but that is perhaps the only division between them.
They are, but most people in the Caribbean are Protestant, yet we don't talk very much about how much the US has in common with Jamaica (except John Candy).
.
Am I missing something here or was John Candy not Canadian?
Melissia wrote:[He's not blue collar, he's a douche who happens to be rich and also a douche.
So he's a rich douche is what I should be getting out of this statement?
As an aside, I really do hate the Republican field. There isn't a single decent candidate except Romney, and Romney won't win the primaries (he might not even win an election, he's flip flopped more in the last year than most politicians in their entire lifetime).
Melissia wrote:[He's not blue collar, he's a douche who happens to be rich and also a douche.
So he's a rich douche is what I should be getting out of this statement?
As an aside, I really do hate the Republican field. There isn't a single decent candidate except Romney, and Romney won't win the primaries (he might not even win an election, he's flip flopped more in the last year than most politicians in their entire lifetime).
Yeah and Romney is a douche as well. Remember this gem?
Automatically Appended Next Post: What do you dislike about America?
America is awesome! American people are amazing! GOD BLESS AMERICA!
biccat wrote:
There were differences between "Israelis" and the surrounding Muslim population that are not present between Palestinian Muslims and the surrounding Muslim population.
Fixed, though there are significant differences between, say, Jordanian Muslims and Palestinian Muslims, especially now that nationality has taken a degree of hold.
Please take the time to fix your own posts, not mine, especially when the "fixing" requires some nod towards anti-Jewish sentiment.
The fact of immigration (whether Jewish or not) into the area known as Israel is pretty well established. These people are different than the Arabs who were living in the area.
AustonT wrote:
I'm pretty sure both Palestinians and Jordanians are predominantly Sunni.
They are, but most people in the Caribbean are Protestant, yet we don't talk very much about how much the US has in common with Jamaica (except John Candy).
AustonT wrote:
Even so nearly 1/3rd of Jordan's population is made up of "Palestinians" with Jordanian citizenship and access to Jordanian social services. Although what we are really talking about is the loss of Jordanian identity then, between the Iraqis and Palestinians fully half of Jordan's population isn't "Jordanian" but I digress.
To be fair, the national distinction between Palestinians and Jordanians is tenuous at best, it exists because of Israel (though that doesn't mean they are at fault).
AustonT wrote:
I concede that nationalism divides Palestinians from Jordanians, but that is perhaps the only division between them.
It is, however, a big one.
In the first and third case Canadians and Americans and Palestinians and Jordanians are good parallels.
biccat wrote:Because until fairly recently (around the time of the creation of Israel) there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" as a distinct group from other Arabs in the region.
On that logic would that make the Israelis an invented people as well?
Same with "Americans".
Most Central and South Americans I know and work with take exception to the term American being applied only to people from the U.S. They can be quick to point out that they are Americans, also.
Because the only way you can not support Israel to the very ends of the earth is to completely and utterly abandon them....
And what exactly do you do? Cutting Aid to pressure them into supporting Palestinians IS abandoning them. Talking to israel and asking them to do whatever, probably won't work unless they support it too. Supporting Palestine instead is also a threat to the Israeli nation too. Can't go both ways.
The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from “Plesheth”, a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as “Philistine”. Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine’s invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers – chiefly from the Mediterranean islands – overran the Philistine districts.
From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean “the Philistine Syria” using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman “Provincia Judaea” and so renamed it “Provincia Syria Palaestina”, the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name “Provincia Syria Palaestina” was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized “Palestine” is derived.
This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.
The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the “three Palestines.” After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.
The name “Falastin” that Arabs today use for “Palestine” is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman “Palaestina”. Quoting Golda Meir:
•The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation’s supposed ancient name, though they couldn’t even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]
biccat wrote:Because until fairly recently (around the time of the creation of Israel) there was no such thing as a "Palestinian" as a distinct group from other Arabs in the region.
That's because at the time they were just people living in the British territory of "Palestine".
Israel is and is not legitimate. It is because it maintained its territorial integrity through force of arms against its vastly superior neighbors, and it's not because it was simply handed the territory by a British empire eager to divest itself of its troublesome and no longer profitable colonies. The Palestinians weren't conquered, they were evicted and ostracized, and are kept down by a campaign of terror. The situation is distinct from similar incidents in America as the natives there were nomadic barbarians, or South Africa where the oppressed population was itself largely the descendants of immigrants from tribes to the north of the British and Dutch colonies, since the Palestinians were as much a civilization as Egypt, and had been for almost as long.
But nonetheless, Israel has managed to maintain its sovereignty, mostly on its own (until the US started bankrolling its military), so it has a degree of legitimacy, regardless of its dubious origins.
Even when they have a significant claim to the land, just as much as the Palestinians? or are we forgetting history?
Except they didn't. While the Israelis were culturally descended from the exiled Judeans, they are far more accurately grouped in with the peoples of whatever lands their families wound up in, making them Germans, Slavs, Spaniards, Danes, etc. You can't put two human populations together, however insular and mutually xenophobic they may be, without significant interbreeding and cultural osmosis, especially when you're talking on a timescale of thousands of years. To say nothing of the whole "nearly two thousand year absence" thing. It would be like America claiming it rightfully owned all of Europe, since its people are mainly descended from immigrants from all over Europe.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It would be like America claiming it rightfully owned all of Europe, since its people are mainly descended from immigrants from all over Europe.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It would be like America claiming it rightfully owned all of Europe, since its people are mainly descended from immigrants from all over Europe.
Don't we?
No, we own Europe because we conquered it back in WWII, then rebuilt it from scratch. We're just not making them pay rent because we're cool like that.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It would be like America claiming it rightfully owned all of Europe, since its people are mainly descended from immigrants from all over Europe.
Don't we?
No, we own Europe because we conquered it back in WWII, then rebuilt it from scratch. We're just not making them pay rent because we're cool like that.
This won't hurt his numbers. Conservatives don't particularly care about the vagueries of the histories of the holy land and the bible credits Israelites with owning the location so the christian base is sated. It's telling of our national mood and the debasement of the conservative movement when Newt can be himself and still maintain a commanding lead in the national spotlight. That said, it's no worse than much of what Perry or Bachman during their climbs toward the sun. It's not like FP is a particularly important subject of debate or consideration in republican primaries right now anyway. In theory the person with the least FP experience is the most likely to look good to the xenophobic base.
biccat wrote: Unless you're talking about Native Americans, but even then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have identified themselves as "Americans" before colonization.
Yep.
They identify themselves by the name "the people" (strangely, most of the native names for themselves usually translate as "of the people" - and the others they share their lands with are always "not of the people").
I actually thought what he had to say was pretty good for an on-the-fly answer. Horribly irrelevant, but he said it so confidently, I couldn't help but be impressed
Gingrich has something of a point, in that there was no Palestinian identity 50 or 60 years ago. When Israel was formed it was genuinely felt the Palestinian population would simply move into the surrounding Arab nations. Remember at the time there were population swaps going on between countries, picking up ethnic minorities in Europe and putting them back in their home countries, and this was done with minimal political force. Ideas about identity and nationality were incredibly different to what we see now, and the formation of a Palestinian identity was entirely unexpected.
But that only defends Gingrich's point in an academic sense, and his comment was not mere academic pondering, but expressly political. It is meant in the sense that Palestinians, because their identity is 'invented' have no right to claim their own state, and this is something that plays well with a certain collections of voters (not hugely significant in votes, but typically high campaign contributors, something Newt needs if his funding is as poor as the rumours have claimed).
The point is that none of that has anything to do with what is happening in the region right now. Whether your identity is recently invented or not, no-one has a right to move you from your home to put their own ethnic group in there. Which makes the present situation unacceptable, which makes a solution necessary. No-one anywhere is pretending that Israel would be capable of granting equal rights if they absorbed Palestine entirely into Israel, nor would Israel want this, as they'd become a minority in their own country. Nor is it practical to have Palestine merge into Jordan or another country (as they neither want to, nor have the capability to rebuild Palestine). Which leaves one option, and that's for a new Palestinian nation.
Not that you'd hear Newt talking about that, because that'd play poorly with his base, and that's the only consideration he has in talking about this stuff.
biccat wrote:
Please take the time to fix your own posts, not mine, especially when the "fixing" requires some nod towards anti-Jewish sentiment.
Wait, so its now antisemitic to point out that Jews are not Muslim, and that there are differences between Jews living in the Middle East and Muslims living in the Middle East?
I suspect that you know it isn't antisemitic to do such a thing, but that you are hiding behind "Antisemitism!" the same way Jesse Jackson hides behind "Racism!" Only, at least in this instance, I'm only noting that Jews are Jewish, and Muslims are Muslim, which would seem to be less about discrimination, and more about identifying characteristics claimed by both groups.
But please, demonstrate for us how one uses equivocation (poorly) in order to avoid addressing a substantive deficiency in a point previously made, I'm certain we would all benefit from the lesson.
biccat wrote:
The fact of immigration (whether Jewish or not) into the area known as Israel is pretty well established. These people are different than the Arabs who were living in the area.
And yet the fact remains that the vast majority of immigrants into Israel were, are, and will be in the future, Jewish. In fact the Israeli government is actively engaged in making certain that the majority of its citizenry remains Jewish, being as the state of Israel takes "Jewish State" as its identity.
You don't hear about, nor will you find statistical evidence of, Arab (or even Muslim) immigration into Israel. Which was, ultimately the point of fixing your original post. The primary difference between Israeli citizens, and their Arab Muslim neighbors, is religion, not nationality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Nor is it practical to have Palestine merge into Jordan or another country (as they neither want to, nor have the capability to rebuild Palestine). Which leaves one option, and that's for a new Palestinian nation.
I imagine that Israel would also take issue with the loss of water rights.
sebster wrote:
Not that you'd hear Newt talking about that, because that'd play poorly with his base, and that's the only consideration he has in talking about this stuff.
Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway, as I sincerely doubt young Newt intends to do anything substantive vis a vis Israel-Palestine if elected.
Do you think that it would cause a right wing conservative's head to explode if you point out to them that the Muslim faith venerates Christ more than the Jewish one?
Stated simply, the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth is that he was an ordinary Jewish man and preacher living during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the first century C.E. The Romans executed him - and also executed many other nationalistic and religious Jews - for speaking out against Roman authority and abuses.
Muslims claim that they believe in the true Jesus Christ. Muslims praise Jesus as a prophet of God, as sinless, as “the Messiah,” as “illustrious in this world and the next,” as “the Word of Allah” and as “the Spirit of God.” (e.g. Sura 3:45) Muslims cite their Bible, the Koran, in confirmation of their belief in Jesus: ‘An
Do not most Blue Collar workers in Teaxs wear Carhartt?
often. Cafhartt/Dickies are a primary clothier for uniforms and heavy work. Its no big deal. Their big factory is McAllen is hot. Not the good way, but the "sweet baby Jebus I just want to die" way. Of course, the devil has to get a good ice tea after he visits McAllen anyway, its so ing hot.
Jihadin wrote:Do not knock Carhartt jackets that Rick wearing. Shows he's an actual blue color worker. They're very durable
I know I'm a little late to this thread, but I simply could not resist pointing out that only in the Dakka OT could someone describe, seemingly with a straight face, a 30-year career politician worth nearly 3 million dollars as "an actual blue collar worker".
Ahtman wrote:Did you know as a child young Newt was able to survive a hostile alien infestation on LV-426? Also, he was a girl.
It's funny you should mention this, because last night in a speech when asked about illegal aliens, Newt responded simply "They mostly come at night. Mostly.", before gazing off despondently into the distance.
It's funny you should mention this, because last night in a speech when asked about illegal aliens, Newt responded simply "They mostly come at night. Mostly.", before gazing off despondently into the distance.
Jihadin wrote:Do not knock Carhartt jackets that Rick wearing. Shows he's an actual blue color worker. They're very durable
I know I'm a little late to this thread, but I simply could not resist pointing out that only in the Dakka OT could someone describe, seemingly with a straight face, a 30-year career politician worth nearly 3 million dollars as "an actual
I read it as being extremely sarcastic, not actually a belief that he is a blue collar worker.
It's funny you should mention this, because last night in a speech when asked about illegal aliens, Newt responded simply "They mostly come at night. Mostly.", before gazing off despondently into the distance.
He seriously do that?
No, but if he did, I'd vote for him, and you have my word on that.
The idea of a president gingrich is frightening to behold.
I mean sure, I can imagine a President Romney not fething things up... or even a Cain president being too incompetent and having too little sway to matter worth a damn... or a Huntsman president trying to balance the budget... but Gingrich...? Sheesh he has a lot of nutty ideas.
Hopefully that'll be why he loses to Obama, if he wins nomination.
Melissia wrote:The idea of a president gingrich is frightening to behold.
I mean sure, I can imagine a President Romney not fething things up... or even a Cain president being too incompetent and having too little sway to matter worth a damn... or a Huntsman president trying to balance the budget... but Gingrich...? Sheesh he has a lot of nutty ideas.
Hopefully that'll be why he loses to Obama, if he wins nomination.
What I cannot fathom, is that a nation of over 300 million people cant rustle up a single nominee for the Republicans who isnt an absolute prick.
Ive said it numerous times, I personally dislike Obama, he is smug and insincere and I have never forgotten seeing the primaries when I was living in LA and seeing him lie through his teeth during debates with Hilary Clinton who I preferred, but seriously, how can you pick a Republican over the guy?
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are all proper scum bags, and lets not even entertain the idea of any of the nutty Religious chicks.
Couldn't we put John McCain in a rejuvo-vat like an Inquisitor and get him to run again wearing a wig?
I mean, sure he had some flaws but compared to those three he's like a friggin boy scout!
mattyrm wrote: What I cannot fathom, is that a nation of over 300 million people cant rustle up a single nominee for the Republicans who isnt an absolute prick.
Because only a small amount of that number are card carrying political party members. You don't need to win over that many people, just a core group you can count on to vote, especially when the number of voters is down.
mattyrm wrote: What I cannot fathom, is that a nation of over 300 million people cant rustle up a single nominee for the Republicans who isnt an absolute prick.
I wouldn't say this is solely a Republican trait, if we want to be really honest the field for President has been weak since Clinton (or more properly Clinton's reelection) Bush II v ManBearPig, Bush II v Kerry, Obama v McCain...I highly doubt any of those politicians will go down as great presidents, or for the losers great politicians. I wish I could say I was surprised by the lukewarm nature of American politicians. You know who needs to run?
Matty's got a fair point guys. That many people in your country and that handful is all the Republican's can come up with? In fairness though I'd say the same about the other lot. Surely you must be able to come up candidates that, although you may not agree with them, have some respect for them.
How is JFK viewed nowadays? Has his time in office been turned into some kind of ideal myth or was he a great President? If so, what happened to that mould?
Wolfstan wrote:How is JFK viewed nowadays? Has his time in office been turned into some kind of ideal myth or was he a great President? If so, what happened to that mould?
The general perception, as I see it, is that JFK is idolized as a great president despite the fact he was probably one of the worst presidents the country has ever had (in my opinion).
Conversely, Nixon probably has the worst reputation among modern presidents, despite the fact I think he was probably one of the better ones, and did many great things*.
Conversely, Nixon probably has the worst reputation among modern presidents, despite the fact I think he was probably one of the better ones, and did many great things*.
*Well, and one bad thing.
Isn't that just the opinion of some pretty right leaning Republicans? I always thought he was apparently a super racist, eternally dishonest bastard of a man?
I thought the general consensus was that he was extremely intelligent and helped things along with regards to the commies and such, but he was morally lacking in pretty much every department?
I suppose it's all down to your definition of a good president as well. I mean, I can see the point that he was a good one because he did the job pretty good, but if he was an absolute toilet of a human being I cant happily say that he was "one of the better ones" because.. well.. its a happy medium between the two isn't it?
Like Clinton was only half the jerk he was, and he did as good a job as a president didn't he?
Although, its my missus who sings his praises.. and she has a heavy democrat bias.
Ouze wrote:
The general perception, as I see it, is that JFK is idolized as a great president despite the fact he was probably one of the worst presidents the country has ever had (in my opinion)
It helps that he died before his legacy could rack up much more than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
AustonT wrote:I was expecting Bobby Jindal to run, I'm guessing maybe he'll run in 2016.
Bobby Jindal lost his ticket to the big show when he showed us he delivers a national address like an eight year-old delivering a book report.
Then why is Newt popular again?
I've been trying to figure that out myself. I'd say he's popular because he's the only choice left. Bachman's insane, Cain imploded, Perry's a horrible debater and the Republicans already did the "plain-spoken average Joe from Texas," thing recently, Santorum's cultural values would have gotten him elected seven hundred years ago, nobody knows who the hell Huntsman is, Ron Paul's some sort of stick insect from Mars, and Romney's a Mormon.
I blame the primary system, as I do for a lot of things. It really is a pretty craptastic way of getting us a nominee. Candidates spend months going as far right or as far left as they can during primary season to appeal to the hardcore, crazy radical base, and then spend the general election trying to claw their way back to the middle so they can actually get voted for by the majority of the country.
I blame the primary system, as I do for a lot of things. It really is a pretty craptastic way of getting us a nominee. Candidates spend months going as far right or as far left as they can during primary season to appeal to the hardcore, crazy radical base, and then spend the general election trying to claw their way back to the middle so they can actually get voted for by the majority of the country.
Perrys strength always was that at the end of the day he's the only realistic choice. I kind of expect the infatuation with Newt to die out soon. He's not a viable choice. He can't possibly win and he's about as far as any of those candidates from presidential material as can be found. Among the very, very many things that he lacks the "it" factor that makes someone look presidential is a big one. Romney is basically a clone from a future presidents body.
I blame the primary system, as I do for a lot of things. It really is a pretty craptastic way of getting us a nominee. Candidates spend months going as far right or as far left as they can during primary season to appeal to the hardcore, crazy radical base, and then spend the general election trying to claw their way back to the middle so they can actually get voted for by the majority of the country.
Perrys strength always was that at the end of the day he's the only realistic choice. I kind of expect the infatuation with Newt to die out soon. He's not a viable choice. He can't possibly win and he's about as far as any of those candidates from presidential material as can be found. Among the very, very many things that he lacks the "it" factor that makes someone look presidential is a big one. Romney is basically a clone from a future presidents body.
Horse crap. Don't blame Mars for Ron Paul. You'll tick off Marvin the Martian.
Everyone contending to be POTUS can look and be Presidential material. Its the attack ads that would bring memories of certain events that would ake them look bad.
example (just an example so don't crucify me)
Solyndra
Extra Martital Affairs
Dead Lock congress (both sides since "vacation" probaly be thrown in)
Not going to throw in the military since no one can question a Pres. for acting on intell. Its different from one perspective that not sitting in the seat to make decision since one does not have the full spectrum on intell provided.
mattyrm, Nixon was far more to the left than Obama is on many issues.
He gave us the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act. Hell, he proclaimed the first Earth Day.
He made Native American issues a bigger deal than any other modern president. He strengthened civil rights. He proposed a universal minimum wage and universal health care. He didn't roll back any of the Great Society.
I'm serious, for all his fault Nixon did a lot of really good things. I'm not even trying to be dishonest when I hear people say crazy stuff like, "Bush Jr did lots of good things like giving money to fight AIDS in Africa so he's more liberal than Obummer!".
When you add up Nixon's policies he comes out as much more to the left than Obama. So does Eisenhower and most other presidents before the Reagan / Clinton era.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can we start talking about how the Republican base hates Mormons again? I'm serious, Gingrich has flip flopped on all the same issues Romney has while being worse in every other aspect. How can people seriously question Romney's sincerity or honesty while supporting Gingrich?
It's baffling. How could someone think Gingrich is a viable candidate while not giving Romney a chance without his Mormonism being an issue?
TheHammer wrote:
It's baffling. How could someone think Gingrich is a viable candidate while not giving Romney a chance without his Mormonism being an issue?
Mormonism isn't the issue, at least not the heart of it. The issue is that Gingrich is willing (and able) to sell himself using soaring, populist rhetoric while Romney is not.
That's the thing, in the primaries, they aren't running to get elected by normal, rational, and sane people.
They're running to get elected by the most hardcore republicans in the party. Happens with both parties too, we just don't have to consider it for dems this year cause Obama's the incumbent.
dogma wrote:Mormonism isn't the issue, at least not the heart of it. The issue is that Gingrich is willing (and able) to sell himself using soaring, populist rhetoric while Romney is not.
That and Gingrich is not Romney. That alone gets him votes.
Melissia wrote:That's the thing, in the primaries, they aren't running to get elected by normal, rational, and sane people.
They're running to get elected by the most hardcore republicans in the party. Happens with both parties too, we just don't have to consider it for dems this year cause Obama's the incumbent.
But remember, the hard core left are who nominated the incumbent in the Democratic primary for the last election... They don't fall into the normal, rational, and sane category either.
True, but even still... Obama's more centrist than anyone the Republicans have put forth so far save possibly Romney... who is hurt by the fact that his own party refuses to budge on the tax issue (spend and tax cut republicans-- just keep spending and cutting income, then blame democrats whenever the budget gets out of control).
TheHammer wrote:
It's baffling. How could someone think Gingrich is a viable candidate while not giving Romney a chance without his Mormonism being an issue?
Mormonism isn't the issue, at least not the heart of it. The issue is that Gingrich is willing (and able) to sell himself using soaring, populist rhetoric while Romney is not.
Mormonism is part of the problem, but only in the primaries where the Christian block matters a little more. Romney's real problem though is that he's too moderate for the current republican party. He's had to flip flop on several of his positions to appear more conservative and people are noticing.
biccat wrote:Every time I worry about the current slate of Republican candidates I look at the opposition and am immediately heartened.
I've said it before, the Republicans could win this election with a cardboard cutout.
Of course, this assessment is predicated only on the level-headed consideration of electoral indicators as determined by the comparative analysis of past Presidential elections, particularly those featuring unpopular incumbents, and not in any way shaped by the partisan leanings of the poster in question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:So has Newt, but the difference I suppose is that newt isn't romney so they're ignoring it.
Its interesting because, socially, Romney is notably more conservative than Gingrich, who largely hand-waves the issue, or at least has done so historically. That being said, Gingrich's emphasis on economic issues likely plays well in the current political climate, especially since Romney's conservative economic platform is a relatively recent invention of his campaign.
It isn't so much that Romney changed his mind, as he actually took an explicit position where previously he had avoided committing to any particular side of the ideological battle regarding the role of the state in the economy.
biccat wrote:Every time I worry about the current slate of Republican candidates I look at the opposition and am immediately heartened.
I've said it before, the Republicans could win this election with a cardboard cutout.
Of course, this assessment is predicated only on the level-headed consideration of electoral indicators as determined by the comparative analysis of past Presidential elections, particularly those featuring unpopular incumbents, and not in any way shaped by the partisan leanings of the poster in question.
You're right. Looking at economic indicators, presidential approval polls, and various measures of public confidence in the government, President Obama is looking at a single term.
biccat wrote:Every time I worry about the current slate of Republican candidates I look at the opposition and am immediately heartened.
I've said it before, the Republicans could win this election with a cardboard cutout.
Of course, this assessment is predicated only on the level-headed consideration of electoral indicators as determined by the comparative analysis of past Presidential elections, particularly those featuring unpopular incumbents, and not in any way shaped by the partisan leanings of the poster in question.
You're right. Looking at economic indicators, presidential approval polls, and various measures of public confidence in the government, President Obama is looking at a single term.
"Economic indicators"
"Various measures"
"Not just what you hear rush say every fifteen seconds"
mattyrm wrote:Isn't that just the opinion of some pretty right leaning Republicans? I always thought he was apparently a super racist, eternally dishonest bastard of a man?
I thought the general consensus was that he was extremely intelligent and helped things along with regards to the commies and such, but he was morally lacking in pretty much every department?
I suppose it's all down to your definition of a good president as well. I mean, I can see the point that he was a good one because he did the job pretty good, but if he was an absolute toilet of a human being I cant happily say that he was "one of the better ones" because.. well.. its a happy medium between the two isn't it?
Like Clinton was only half the jerk he was, and he did as good a job as a president didn't he?
Although, its my missus who sings his praises.. and she has a heavy democrat bias.
Although I vote for Republicans on occasion, I definitely don't think I could accurately be called a Republican. I skew liberal in general. That being said, your middle part accurately depicted how I feel about Nixon. His moral compass was sort of skewed, sure. But here's what I liked about him:
He ended Vietnam
He started to reduce nuclear proliferation
He wanted universal healthcare (but couldn't get it done, settling for some elements of it)
He visited China, a diplomatic first
He formed OSHA
He created the EPA
Supported the Clean Water Act
Supported the Equal Rights Amendment
He personally didn't like black people, but pushed desegregation hard. He didn't like Jews, but airlifted arms to Israel. I'm not a big supporter of Israel currently, but that's because I feel they can adequately defend themselves without our interference. Definitely a different situation in 1973. In short, the man had enormous personal failings, but still managed to get a tremendous amount of things done in a relatively short timespan, and I respect the job he did if not the person he was.
We should probably start a new thread if we want to talk about Nixon, though.
biccat wrote:
You're right. Looking at economic indicators, presidential approval polls, and various measures of public confidence in the government, President Obama is looking at a single term.
Alright, let's break this down.
Economic indicators:
This is probably the most interesting means of determining the feasibility of a given President's reelection bid, though it isn't quite so clear cut as it seems. First of all, the two most important statistics, relative to electoral politics, are unemployment and CPI, everything else can essentially be ignored.
Speaking first to unemployment, while the figures under Obama have been high, they are not unprecedented. Reagan presided over a similar increase in unemployment, peaking at 9.7% in 1982, that did not fully abate until he left office in 1988. Indeed, he faced reelection with unemployment at 7.51%, which, while likely below what Obama will see, speaks to the manner in which notable drops in unemployment can positively impact a Presidential bid; especially when your opponent is a "cardboard cutout" like Goldwater.
Concerning CPI there has been no significant change, relative to inflation, over Obama's term in office, so it indicates nothing.
Presidential approval:
Obama's latest weekly approval average was, according to Gallup, 43%. This is lower than all recent Presidents except Carter. However, incumbent candidates generally see a 3-5% increase in their approval ratings following the close of the opposition primary, and it is not unheard of for sitting Presidents to win their bid for a second term despite sub-50% approval, a fact which must be granted consideration given that Obama is currently polling ahead of all Republican contenders when presented with a mock vote; even Rasmussen, who traditionally produce results skewed towards the GOP, only has Romney leading by 3 points. Further consider that the President with the approval pattern most similar to Obama's, Gerald Ford, managed to be only narrowly defeated by Carter, and the picture looks more like a close election than one which will be carried by a "cardboard cutout".
Public Confidence in Government:
Historically, public confidence in government (or trust in government, depending on the methodology you prefer) has little effect on the Presidential election. Note that both Richard Nixon and the second Bush secured reelection despite presiding over periods of falling public confidence in the state, and that Carter and the first Bush failed to do the same despite rising confidence, and high, stable confidence respectively.
dogma wrote:Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway, as I sincerely doubt young Newt intends to do anything substantive vis a vis Israel-Palestine if elected.
Well, if he won office he'd certainly do one thing, maintain the US's constant and absolute support to Israel no matter what they do.
As opposed to (some) Democratic presidential candidates, who make speaches about resolving the issue and hint ever so slightly at making US support of Israel something other than completely unconditional... before winning office and doing exactly what every Republican presidential candidate does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: What I cannot fathom, is that a nation of over 300 million people cant rustle up a single nominee for the Republicans who isnt an absolute prick.
Thing is, there's a series of arbitrary criteria that have to be met for someone to be considered electable to the Presidency, and the same apply to both sides.
The biggest filter is that they have to have just finished their second term as governor, be in their second term as governor, or be a senator from one of the bigger states. These are the only people with the connections to raise a proper war chest capable of sustaining a national presidential election. Consider Herman Cain here, despite leading polls for some time and raising all kinds of media interest, his war chest was never going to sustain a primary run, let alone a presidential race. So we're looking at about 70 people total that could potentially run for president for either party.
The second criteria is that you have to have some kind of position on national matters. They don't have to be sensible, they just have to sound not completely stupid. Of that list of 70 people, maybe half are capable of this, leaving us with about 35 people who could seriously run in a primary with a chance of winning.
Then you have to 'look presidential', having that kind gravitas and strength of personality that makes people take you seriously, even if they hate you, they have to admit you're a person of power and authority. Consider Fred Thompson, who was for a brief time seriously considered as a 2008 presidential nominee, despite having a political career full of exactly zero achievements, just because he really, really looked like a president. Basically think of this being everything Bobby Jindal doesn't have. This category would cut out about 90% of people, but the people who won senate seats and governorships contain a pretty high proportion of people who look presidential, so it maybe cuts out another third, leaving us with about a dozen people).
Lastly, you can't be damaged goods. This might mean a political scandal, but just as often it means not losing a previous presidential election, nor coming really close to winning a primary (though Republicans seem a lot more forgiving in that regard that Democrats). Still, it knocks out about another third of candidates, leaving us about eight people.
Thing is, when you get eight people, picked not on their capability for actually being president, but just by the rules of a very silly game, it's pretty much luck if one or two of them could actually conceivably be any good in the role. Consider the woeful Democratic field in 2004, that ended up picking John Kerry, despite him being absolutely nobody's first choice for President. Without anything really major changing, the next Democratic field had Obama and Clinton, who were both solid choices.
It's just luck. This time around the Republicans got poor luck, and are likely to end up with their own version of John Kerry, Mitt Romney. To their credit, they're desperate to pick anyone but Mitt Romney, but it isn't going to happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:How is JFK viewed nowadays? Has his time in office been turned into some kind of ideal myth or was he a great President? If so, what happened to that mould?
The way I see, every Democrat was desperate to consider JFK a really great president, because they didn't want to go pre-war to start talking about the last great president, and Johnson didn't win office of his own, and Carter had, well, the Carter presidency, so it had to be JFK as the shining light of everything that's good in the world.
Except the Democrats have since has Clinton, so now they don't need JFK anymore.
It's like the Republicans with Reagan, they don't want to go all the way back to Eisenhower to talk about a president that was any good, so instead they pretend Reagan did the stuff that Eisenhower did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Every time I worry about the current slate of Republican candidates I look at the opposition and am immediately heartened.
I've said it before, the Republicans could win this election with a cardboard cutout.
If only they had someone as electable as a cardboard cutout.
sebster wrote:
Well, if he won office he'd certainly do one thing, maintain the US's constant and absolute support to Israel no matter what they do.
As opposed to (some) Democratic presidential candidates, who make speaches about resolving the issue and hint ever so slightly at making US support of Israel something other than completely unconditional... before winning office and doing exactly what every Republican presidential candidate does.
To be fair, its gotten to be so that even referring to Jewish people as Jews, and noting that Jewish people are different from non-Jewish people, is considered antisemitic by a large chunk of the voting populace. God forbid actual criticism follow either point.
AustonT wrote:the ones that are won't play ball. Like this guy.
Yeah, he falls foul of the political scandal thing. Not for anything he's done, but you know, it's hard to distance yourself from that other guy.
What happened to electing generals?
I hear Stanley McChrystal is available.
Good question. Coming from over here I have an immediate freak out at the idea of military officers moving into civilian politics, but you guys don't have that reaction, and at the end of the day the last general who moved into the Whitehouse was the last really good Republican president.
It's an ever weirder thing that you don't worry about electing generals anymore, considering how much of an advantage it is for a candidate to have military experience.
sebster wrote:
It's an ever weirder thing that you don't worry about electing generals anymore, considering how much of an advantage it is for a candidate to have military experience.
Most US generals cum President were associated with the Civil War, the Revolution, or WWII.
Generals only tend to get elected given extraordinary circumstances.
Edit: I forgot a ton of early Presidents that were also Generals.
sebster wrote:
It's an ever weirder thing that you don't worry about electing generals anymore, considering how much of an advantage it is for a candidate to have military experience.
The last general we elected was Eisenhower, and that was on the back of WWII. Prior to that we had Grant (Civil War), Jackson (Revolution, 1812), and Washington (Revolution).
Generals only tend to get elected given extraordinary circumstances.
Did you intentionally skip Taylor, Garfield,W.H. Harrison,Hayes,Pierce, Johnson, Arthur, and B. Harrison?
biccat wrote:Every time I worry about the current slate of Republican candidates I look at the opposition and am immediately heartened.
I've said it before, the Republicans could win this election with a cardboard cutout.
Frankly a cardboard cutout could avoid screwing up 50% of the time. I fear thats a far higher rate than the current candidates and holder of the office can do.
Frazzled wrote:Frankly a cardboard cutout could avoid screwing up 50% of the time. I fear thats a far higher rate than the current candidates and holder of the office can do.
Precisely.
A cardboard cutout would at least know when to keep their mouths shut (or, if their mouth is permanently open, at least no when not to say anything).
Frazzled wrote:Frankly a cardboard cutout could avoid screwing up 50% of the time. I fear thats a far higher rate than the current candidates and holder of the office can do.
Precisely.
A cardboard cutout would at least know when to keep their mouths shut (or, if their mouth is permanently open, at least no when not to say anything).
I think we may have just found the greatest politician of our time
biccat wrote:
You're right. Looking at economic indicators, presidential approval polls, and various measures of public confidence in the government, President Obama is looking at a single term.
Screw it, Ill put my money where my mouth is!
Ill have 50 bucks says Obama pisses the next election because the Republicans cant get anyone who isn't a trainwreck. And I'm unbiased, I desperately wanted McCain to win last time until he picked/was forced to take that fething.. thing as VP.
Whaddya say? With paypal we can gamble internationally!
Unless your anywhere near California, then I can probably nip round and drop it off sometime as long as you buy me a can of Tecate.
If you take the bet Im writing to Michelle Bachman and asking her to run as VP with a giant talking animatronic fetus.
biccat, I'm willing to bet a 40k battleforce or Fantasy battalion that a Republican will not win in 2012 for president. I'm serious, send me a message and we can work out the details.
biccat wrote:
You're right. Looking at economic indicators, presidential approval polls, and various measures of public confidence in the government, President Obama is looking at a single term.
Screw it, Ill put my money where my mouth is!
Ill have 50 bucks says Obama pisses the next election because the Republicans cant get anyone who isn't a trainwreck. And I'm unbiased, I desperately wanted McCain to win last time until he picked/was forced to take that fething.. thing as VP.
I'd be careful with that, Matty. I don't know how slowly moving election momentum is in the UK, but in the US it changes pretty fast. In December 2007, it was clear that the election would be a narrow Hillary Clinton win over Rudy Giuliani.
biccat wrote:
You're right. Looking at economic indicators, presidential approval polls, and various measures of public confidence in the government, President Obama is looking at a single term.
Screw it, Ill put my money where my mouth is!
Ill have 50 bucks says Obama pisses the next election because the Republicans cant get anyone who isn't a trainwreck. And I'm unbiased, I desperately wanted McCain to win last time until he picked/was forced to take that fething.. thing as VP.
I'd be careful with that, Matty. I don't know how slowly moving election momentum is in the UK, but in the US it changes pretty fast. In December 2007, it was clear that the election would be a narrow Hillary Clinton win over Rudy Giuliani.
Well, Hilary and Obama went pretty close, and Hilary would have equally pissed it against McCain/Palin, so my bet still looks pretty secure. I really cant see the Republicans whipping anybody up in time. Unless someone just appears who we have heard nothing from like Powell or Condi or something.
What the hell is she doing anyway's? I bet she would do a good job, plus she is a woman, in fact why didnt McCain/Rice go for it? Id have happily voted for those two and im sure an enormous amount of Americans would. McCains chances only vanished after Sarah "the walking abortion" Palin showed up.
Matty lad...talk to wife to make sure you can cover down on bet incase you lose. I rather argue with a bunch of afghani truck drivers that has me surrounded that deal with my wife when she "rolls" with rightous fury
Jihadin wrote:Matty lad...talk to wife to make sure you can cover down on bet incase you lose. I rather argue with a bunch of afghani truck drivers that has me surrounded that deal with my wife when she "rolls" with rightous fury
Ancient Buddha say: even the devil not with angry fish wife ***shudder***
Jihadin wrote:Matty lad...talk to wife to make sure you can cover down on bet incase you lose. I rather argue with a bunch of afghani truck drivers that has me surrounded that deal with my wife when she "rolls" with rightous fury
The long haired colonel is known amongst soldiers the world over for her incandescent rage.
I mean, she only weighs 105lbs, think I could take her out pretty easily, but dispatching her with a throat punch is shunned in Western nations, whereas Kung-fu kicking an Afghan in the neck brings whoops of delight to all who gaze upon it.
So it may be more of a fear of society as a whole on mental grounds, rather than lacking confidence in my ability to toss some phosphorus grenades into the master bedroom and spray into the smoke with machine gun.
dogma wrote:To be fair, its gotten to be so that even referring to Jewish people as Jews, and noting that Jewish people are different from non-Jewish people, is considered antisemitic by a large chunk of the voting populace. God forbid actual criticism follow either point.
It is weird, true. It's funny to read Israeli experts on the Palestine issue, and whether they're conciliatory or expansionist, they're at least coming at the issue from a position of knowledge, and there's nothing off-bounds when it comes to discussing it. Which to be frank is really impressive, when you consider how sensitive it would be to them to discuss it. Whereas Americans have a whole host of weird hang-ups, you can't say that Israelis are mostly Jewish, you can't point out that Jews undertook their own terror campaign to win Israel in the first place, it's very strange.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Frankly a cardboard cutout could avoid screwing up 50% of the time. I fear thats a far higher rate than the current candidates and holder of the office can do.
It's why I think you guys just need to get rid of all the voting nonsense and put zombie Roosevelt* in the Whitehouse. He's dead so he can't feth anything up, and no country is going to mess with you because they'll be all 'holy fething gak they've put a corpse in a chair and every year they have a state of the union and it's just everyone sitting there staring at a fething corpse for twenty minutes we are not fething with those guys'.
*If forced to pick which Roosevelt, it's probably better to go with FDR, just because there's chance Teddy isn't really dead, but is just pissed off and waiting for whoever is stupid enough to dig him up.
Colin Powell I think survived the Bush administration fairly well. He's popular among the military, and he avoided a lot of murky political issues in his job. For a long time it looked like he had political ambitions, but it seems he hasn't decided to do much in switching to a fully political career.
LordofHats wrote:Colin Powell I think survived the Bush administration fairly well. He's popular among the military, and he avoided a lot of murky political issues in his job. For a long time it looked like he had political ambitions, but it seems he hasn't decided to do much in switching to a fully political career.
He's fine now, because he backed off from seeking public office so no-one is going to bother muckraking him. But if he ever ran, that speach he gave to the UN would get played again and again and again.
LordofHats wrote:Colin Powell I think survived the Bush administration fairly well. He's popular among the military, and he avoided a lot of murky political issues in his job..
If by "avoided a lot of murky political issues" you mean "was thrown under the bus" then I agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Funny that as the military has gotten bigger and bigger, generals have become less likely to be president. Think it'd be the opposite..
Why run for office when you can already command thousands of dollars in speaker fees?
Why run for office when you can already command thousands of dollars in speaker fees?
To fight the pinko commie leftists who are ruining America hurr! (you know leaving out the fact that the last general to be elected president would probably fall under the glare of the wackos who run the RNC)
Powell resigned from the Bush Admin. due to the fact th speech he gave to the UN of evidence of WMD in Iraq could not confirmed. So his integerty and creditability came into question. So he resigned. Integerty and credibility are pretty big in the military.
sebster wrote:[*If forced to pick which Roosevelt, it's probably better to go with FDR, just because there's chance Teddy isn't really dead, but is just pissed off and waiting for whoever is stupid enough to dig him up.
In fact, its highly likely. After all, where do you think they got the idea for the Terminator? Except Roosevelt wouldn't carry a mini gun. He'd just carry around the turrent of an M1 tank with "Big Stick" painted on the side, and would deal with the Situation.
*Yes the Situation. In fact all of Jersey Shore would be first against the wall when the Moose comes...
I will shoot Mattrym in the foot just to gun down the idiots from Jersey Shore...and scrounge ammo off Mattrym after I pepper spray him when he tries to get in line to shoot...eventually I let him shoot them..but he be highly irate when he finds out the reason I left was to call a A10 strike on Jerseylicious salon.
biccat, since I'm so confidant that the Republicans won't win the presidency I'm willing to give you better odds!
I'll give you a battleforce or battalion of your choice if a Republican wins next year for president and in return I'll get a $40 or $50 box set from GW if a Republican doesn't win the presidency next year.
Come on! Those are 2 for 1 odds! Those are even closer to 3 for 1 if you wanted a Tomb Kings battalion!
ing hot.
