I went down to the Obama headquarters for the Caucus results, and I have to say that there was a whole lot of animosity towards Clinton for some reason.
Like, one guy (a guy who looked like he was sort of in charge of the thing, and at the end made me really uncomfortable insisting I take a yardsign. I ended up lying and saying I was in the dorms, but he made me take a poster thing anyway)...anyway, the one guy implied strongly that she was a "C" word...I guess it is Nevada, though.
And the clapping during his speech was kind of silly. It was honestly like people who clap in movie theatres.
man, she gets the hate in the weirdest of places. You should see the comments on the Times of London's website sometimes
that's disappointing to read. the bit about the Obama supporters, I mean. that's really antithetical to Obama's whole spirit and strategy.
Clinton's still very strong in Nevada, so I can see her riling up Obama campaigners, but they should be following Obama's example and staying positive here.
Oh, i agree the looney fringe are overrepresented on the intertrons and particularly in news-blog comment pages, it just weirds me out that apparently the Fox-news devotees are signing up to british websites to call Hilary a communist and rant about Teh Muslims. Like, why go so far afield, I thought that demographic hated anything outside the US?
Chiplitfam: I have heard more than a few conversations regarding this frightening scenario.
I pray it is only that. Imagine another type of 911 (again set up by this administration) where Bush will declare Marshall Law, suspend the Constitution, and round up all opposed to this current regime, abolish any elections, and declare himself absolute didtator. I hope this is purely science fiction. But I don't put anything past these guys. They are becomming desperate. If I am completely off base, let me know. I do not want to believe this. What do you think? This article by Stang is excellent.
A lot of people in the US recognise that their news is a bit pants, and a lot of those people seem to think that the BBC is much better. I guess that impression leaks out even into the looney fringe.
Oh, and congrats for all those supporting Santos, er, Obama.
Oh, i agree the looney fringe are overrepresented on the intertrons and particularly in news-blog comment pages, it just weirds me out that apparently the Fox-news devotees are signing up to british websites to call Hilary a communist and rant about Teh Muslims. Like, why go so far afield, I thought that demographic hated anything outside the US?
I used to see American right wingers in the English middle eastern boards I used to post in all the time. Maybe they just really love trolling.
Oh indeed, the Times attracts some pretty fucking vitriolic comments about liberals and Democrats. I read the paper version sometimes and the opinion pieces are often pretty much as bad. But then that is the Times I guess
Well, like the BBC comments, people are idiots the world around. Blame the 'have your say' trend of 24 hour & internet news rather than the specific outlet. Also, I suspect you are talking about Gerard Baker pieces in the Times, who usually finds something bad to say about Democrats and something unreasonably optimistic to say about Republicans, but then, he's American, he's a Republican, and he's only one man. The rest of the op ed people are pretty balanced.
I'll buy the Times tomorrow and see if I can spot the commentators that annoyed me, and if they don't write something snarky this weekend about US politics I'll eat my hats.
I'll buy the Times tomorrow and see if I can spot the commentators that annoyed me, and if they don't write something snarky this weekend about US politics I'll eat my hats.
Well sure, they might write something snarky, but it's US politics, that is neither hard nor uncalled for. I thought you were (unfairly) accusing the Times of bias against Democrats, which is actually a problem for a newspaper - well, hypothetically.
Man, I just heard Huckabee on CNN talking about his national sales tax plan. Dude is channeling Ron Paul. I dunno if he was talking like this before, but holy shit God please don't let this guy get the fucking presidency.
Have to say that although Obama is certainly a good speaker, and the speech is certainly spot on for the US/Nuremberg hysteria of American campaign rallies, he is still touting some awful shite as policy. Saving America from the tyranny of oil? Stop the flood of jobs abroad? Er, what flood of jobs abroad? There is an awful lot of bullshit and pandering to populist misconceptions.
Also, over half the speech is all about change & hope, with about 30 seconds on er, what to change, what he is hoping for (a better America it seems...which I'm sure all the other candidates are just dead set against). Which would be fine for a victory speech, if I had actually heard anything much more substantial from him any other time.
Seems like a nice guy, fine orator, nice message - but still worryingly low on substance.
I'll buy the Times tomorrow and see if I can spot the commentators that annoyed me, and if they don't write something snarky this weekend about US politics I'll eat my hats.
Well sure, they might write something snarky, but it's US politics, that is neither hard nor uncalled for. I thought you were (unfairly) accusing the Times of bias against Democrats, which is actually a problem for a newspaper - well, hypothetically.
Well I sort of was accusing the Times of that. But in the same line I'd recognise that the Guardian has a similar bias against Republicans. That is why I buy or read the Times, Metro/free newspapers, the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and FT weekly, to try and ensure I see a range of interpretations of current events.
At least the UK has the choice! Back home in NZ each major city has only one big daily newspaper and there is no real national newspaper, which makes it a bitch if you don't agree with the particular bias or prejudice of the local rag. Of course you don't have to read a newspaper but in NZ they have traditionally acted as the main provider of regional news, advertising and public notices, making them necessary to keep in touch with what is happening locally. The Internet has helped break that monopoly but it still sucks.
Have to say that although Obama is certainly a good speaker, and the speech is certainly spot on for the US/Nuremberg hysteria of American campaign rallies, he is still touting some awful shite as policy. Saving America from the tyranny of oil? Stop the flood of jobs abroad? Er, what flood of jobs abroad? There is an awful lot of bullshit and pandering to populist misconceptions.
Also, over half the speech is all about change & hope, with about 30 seconds on er, what to change, what he is hoping for (a better America it seems...which I'm sure all the other candidates are just dead set against). Which would be fine for a victory speech, if I had actually heard anything much more substantial from him any other time.
Seems like a nice guy, fine orator, nice message - but still worryingly low on substance.
Have to say that although Obama is certainly a good speaker, and the speech is certainly spot on for the US/Nuremberg hysteria of American campaign rallies, he is still touting some awful shite as policy. Saving America from the tyranny of oil? Stop the flood of jobs abroad? Er, what flood of jobs abroad? There is an awful lot of bullshit and pandering to populist misconceptions.
Also, over half the speech is all about change & hope, with about 30 seconds on er, what to change, what he is hoping for (a better America it seems...which I'm sure all the other candidates are just dead set against). Which would be fine for a victory speech, if I had actually heard anything much more substantial from him any other time.
Seems like a nice guy, fine orator, nice message - but still worryingly low on substance.
Maybe if you had caught the policy speeches earlier in the campaign . . . ?
The Times doesn't even come close to having a bias against Democrats, I'm not sure where you get that from. Only op-ed people who might are Gerard Baker who I mentioned, and possibly William Rees-Mogg (though he rarely talks about US politics) but that's just because he's a thousand years old, and a conservative crackpot who relentlessly talks up the Conservative Party in the UK even when they are doing disasterously badly. He's not to be taken seriously. As for the other 10-20 regular op-ed people, they are either left-leaning or pretty fair.
Times reporting certainly has much more 'olol GOP fundies' than it does 'olol lefty Dems'.
In fact, the reason a lot of serious people read it (as well as the FT) is that it's still pretty much the only broadsheet left which isn't relentlessly biased one way or another.
Telegraph = Relentlessly Conservative. What's wrong with jaunting off abroad and killing the darkies, they like it! Rah rah blah blah. Guardian = Batshit lefties. Stalinism a bit moderate. Fond of letting those lovely Taliban folk with their simple ways and quaint theocratic oppression, who are being cruelly slaughtered for peaceful protest against our corporate western stormtroopers. Independent = Just batshit, but also lefty. Inherent inability to report the news people are interested in rather than some off-the-wall 9 pager about the plight of siamese goats in Monglia FT = quality, but focus on business.
The Times is the only vaguely reasonable option remaining for general news.
I find the Times pretty socially backward, actually. A few columns over christmas really made me want to slap the shit out of the authors, particularly the one that insisted that all women want is bling. The Guardian can be unhinged on occasion, but I find them much more balanced on average.
In fact, the reason a lot of serious people read it (as well as the FT) is that it's still pretty much the only broadsheet left which isn't relentlessly biased one way or another.
Obligatory Yes Prime Minister Quote:
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Maybe if you had caught the policy speeches earlier in the campaign . . . ?
This is my problem, the policy speech transcripts I've seen are similarly weak on substance, that which there is being pretty misguided. Not even in a "I don't agree with the solution" way, but in a "the facts indicate this isn't even a problem".
I think he has a lot going for him, he seems to be preferable to all the other serious candidates (except for McCain), certainly there is a lot of international capital to be made in foreign policy from the perception of a black guy, left-leaning, immigrant family avec Muslims, as President.
But still, as far as I can see, his policies are based on some really shaky / populist / partisan presumptions - the generally populist economic ideas in particular are really not good. And his foreign policy, though it has potential, is so far: withdraw from Iraq. Otherwise, nothing.
Most of this would affect the US domestically rather than the rest of the world, but if I were still living there, that's enough to make me worry about him in the same way as Huckabee (ie scarce hints of his actual policies suggest that no substance = batshit substance); whereas I wouldn't have those concerns about Clinton or McCain.
I find the Times pretty socially backward, actually. A few columns over christmas really made me want to slap the shit out of the authors, particularly the one that insisted that all women want is bling. The Guardian can be unhinged on occasion, but I find them much more balanced on average.
Distinction I'm trying to make here:
Times reporting = balanced
Times op-ed writers taken as a whole = balanced
Individual op-ed writers are of course going to have a fairly strong view, or focus on particular issues, it's what they are paid for. But if you don't like that, don't read op-ed. It is after all, just opinion.
@Marlor: Obligatory yes, I thought about it, but was sure someone else would come up with it and save me the bother
PS Cat, I also humbly submit that what you find to be socially backward isn't necessarily what the rest of the world (certainly not the UK) find to be socially backward. I'm not entirely surprised that you think the Guardian to be more balanced, but I don't think that makes it more balanced.
Maybe if you had caught the policy speeches earlier in the campaign . . . ?
This is my problem, the policy speech transcripts I've seen are similarly weak on substance, that which there is being pretty misguided. Not even in a "I don't agree with the solution" way, but in a "the facts indicate this isn't even a problem".
I think he has a lot going for him, he seems to be preferable to all the other serious candidates (except for McCain), certainly there is a lot of international capital to be made in foreign policy from the perception of a black guy, left-leaning, immigrant family avec Muslims, as President.
But still, as far as I can see, his policies are based on some really shaky / populist / partisan presumptions - the generally populist economic ideas in particular are really not good. And his foreign policy, though it has potential, is so far: withdraw from Iraq. Otherwise, nothing.
Most of this would affect the US domestically rather than the rest of the world, but if I were still living there, that's enough to make me worry about him in the same way as Huckabee (ie scarce hints of his actual policies suggest that no substance = batshit substance); whereas I wouldn't have those concerns about Clinton or McCain.
It's hard for me to respond without knowing what you have seen.
Did you read his foreign policy article in Foreign Affairs?
I was doing to say something about Bill Richardson earlier but I forgot about it.
Yes he is wasting his time running for president Pete Domenici's senatorial seat is up for grabs.
I just don't understand why he continued with running for president when one look at the losers running for senator, he could still be in a high level of goverment with it.
David Gergen, a former White House aide under Republican and the Clinton administrations, pointed out that Iowa was not a strong state for Clinton from the start. "The Clintons are nothing if not resilient," he said. "They will fight back. For Barack Obama, this is a personal triumph. For an African-American to go into a state that's 95 percent white and win against Mrs. Clinton is an absolutely remarkable victory."
Seems a contradictory statement. It's not a strong state for Clinton, but it manages to be absolutely remarkable that she lost.
Requesting history protip: What nations have elected a minority to their highest government position?
Again, a lot of fluff and statement of principle, as well as a lot of generally accepted ideas presented as something slightly new. But the problem is with the substance.
1. Withdrawal of combat brigades from Iraq by March 31 2008? Is he kidding? The idea that Iraqi forces could take up security by then is absurd, even if the principle of Iraqi leaders sorting out the peace is good. But these principles aren't anything new: Iraq is a morass, the occupation was fucked up, Israel/Palestine affects the US...? It's just stating the obvious.
I am also highly skeptical of someone who, in what is clearly a campaigning article, argues for a schedule to be completed 6 months before he would be elected. It's a dodge: he avoids telling us what the Obama schedule would be in office.
2. Talk directly to Iran. One point, that's a specific policy change & stated intent.
3. Military. One direct proposal (addition of troops). Except that isn't a new proposal, that's a reversal of aspects of the Rumsfeld DoD 'transformation' which de facto cut troop numbers. So he's actually saying: go back to where we were 8 years ago.
Otherwise, there is two paragraphs of bluff. "I would use American troops wisely". Ok. Find me someone who campaigns to use them poorly? "providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training" Er...anyone saying we should give them shit kit? He's freewheeling with no substance.
Later: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military" What does this mean? The US military in Iraq and Afghan has been learning fast that to defeat insurgencies & terrorism, you need more of a 19th century colonial military than a 21st century RMA tech-driven force.
4. Nuclear weapons. Not tackling the problem that Russia don't want to co-operate on nukes, just saying we need co-operation. Proposes $50m for the IAEA to stop proliferation in a 'new' bank, ignoring the fact that the IAEA already does this: essentially proposing to give $50m for the IAEA to sort it out. $50m not much considering their budget.
5. Terrorism. "Insisting" rather than "requesting" a Pakistani crackdown. Please. That's rhetoric, not policy. Seems to totally misunderstand Pakistani politics: If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban. Fucks sake, the Pakistani govt. isn't cooperating with the Taliban at all, let alone to advance its interests. Tribal leaders and factions are co-operating with the Taliban because those ties are much older and stronger than the national borders defined in the mid-20th century. Bad error.
...and on and on. The rest is mostly fluff about international co-operation without many specifics. Suffice to say, he still seems to me to have a surfeit of nice rhetoric which has been mostly heard before, and a severe lack of actual policies or ideas. Fair enough, there are reasons for candidates not committing to specific policies too far in advance. But the stuff I've outlined above either demonstrates a lack of serious understanding of the situations, or proposes fluff policies or reversions of Bush policy, dressed up as change.
I won't even mention his environmental proposals, because although they are bollocks for reasons I've posted in other threads, they are also widely accepted bollocks, so he can't really be blamed. But I will say that proposing to 'free America from foreign oil' is fantasy, and his suggestions about a global low-energy carbon market are misleading and overstated (the major growing energy markets - in developing countries - have almost no interest in them being low-carbon).
My worry is that this is symptomatic of his campaign.
David Gergen, a former White House aide under Republican and the Clinton administrations, pointed out that Iowa was not a strong state for Clinton from the start. "The Clintons are nothing if not resilient," he said. "They will fight back. For Barack Obama, this is a personal triumph. For an African-American to go into a state that's 95 percent white and win against Mrs. Clinton is an absolutely remarkable victory."
Seems a contradictory statement. It's not a strong state for Clinton, but it manages to be absolutely remarkable that she lost.
Requesting history protip: What nations have elected a minority to their highest government position?
I mean, Pakistanis aren't a minority in Pakistan, and though women are often described as minorities, they aren't actually minorities.
Also, if you do mean women, so have India, Britain, and many more.
Well, to lay it out, and not counting the fact that any political party that isn't in the majority is considered to be a minority:
- Yes, I am referring to Bhutto.
- There are more men than women in Pakistan
- The literacy rate for women is 36%, making them very much a minority in terms of education level. Bhutto went to Oxford.
- Pakistan is 77% Sunni Muslim, Bhutto is Shia.
- Bhutto is Sindhi, which is 63% Sunni.
- Only 12% of Pakistanis speak Sindhi, as compared to 48% Punjabi.
But I guess if that's not what you were looking for, I could check for something along more conventional meanings of the word "minority".
Haha. Conversation with a friend today regarding the caucus:
H: Well, at least Ron Paul got trounced, right?
M: Actually, he didn't do horribly. Pulled in 10-11% of the vote.
H: (pause) Are you kidding?
M: No, I'm serious.
H: What the hell? Was there a two drink minimum at the Iowa caucus?
Haha. Conversation with a friend today regarding the caucus:
H: Well, at least Ron Paul got trounced, right?
M: Actually, he didn't do horribly. Pulled in 10-11% of the vote.
H: (pause) Are you kidding?
M: No, I'm serious.
H: What the hell? Was there a two drink minimum at the Iowa caucus?
It's 10%, I like how he tried to squeeze that extra percent out, and the worse part is that Rep. Paul actually got two delegates.
Posts
that's disappointing to read. the bit about the Obama supporters, I mean. that's really antithetical to Obama's whole spirit and strategy.
Clinton's still very strong in Nevada, so I can see her riling up Obama campaigners, but they should be following Obama's example and staying positive here.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Chiplitfam: I have heard more than a few conversations regarding this frightening scenario.
I pray it is only that. Imagine another type of 911 (again set up by this administration) where Bush will declare Marshall Law, suspend the Constitution, and round up all opposed to this current regime, abolish any elections, and declare himself absolute didtator. I hope this is purely science fiction. But I don't put anything past these guys. They are becomming desperate. If I am completely off base, let me know. I do not want to believe this. What do you think? This article by Stang is excellent.
bry77gli: Unfortunately this is all too real.
Oh, and congrats for all those supporting Santos, er, Obama.
Hahaha, classic. Is he like Sammo Law?
I used to see American right wingers in the English middle eastern boards I used to post in all the time. Maybe they just really love trolling.
How can they do that with less than 30% reporting?
X1384: think they counting their chickens before they hatch
Recount!
*giggle*
One, two, three...yep, it's Huckabee alright.
I'll buy the Times tomorrow and see if I can spot the commentators that annoyed me, and if they don't write something snarky this weekend about US politics I'll eat my hats.
Well sure, they might write something snarky, but it's US politics, that is neither hard nor uncalled for. I thought you were (unfairly) accusing the Times of bias against Democrats, which is actually a problem for a newspaper - well, hypothetically.
Yeah, they seem perplexed between the following responses to events:
1. O my God this election was rigged!
2. Haha we have more money than Huckabee and more votes than Giuliani - now they will have to include Ron Paul in the debates!
3. What a great start, on to NH!
Details?
Basically he scraps the income tax and replaces it with a 20% sales tax or something of that nature.
I think name recognition is probably playing a part in that.
But yeah. Good times.
Also, over half the speech is all about change & hope, with about 30 seconds on er, what to change, what he is hoping for (a better America it seems...which I'm sure all the other candidates are just dead set against). Which would be fine for a victory speech, if I had actually heard anything much more substantial from him any other time.
Seems like a nice guy, fine orator, nice message - but still worryingly low on substance.
Well I sort of was accusing the Times of that. But in the same line I'd recognise that the Guardian has a similar bias against Republicans. That is why I buy or read the Times, Metro/free newspapers, the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and FT weekly, to try and ensure I see a range of interpretations of current events.
At least the UK has the choice! Back home in NZ each major city has only one big daily newspaper and there is no real national newspaper, which makes it a bitch if you don't agree with the particular bias or prejudice of the local rag. Of course you don't have to read a newspaper but in NZ they have traditionally acted as the main provider of regional news, advertising and public notices, making them necessary to keep in touch with what is happening locally. The Internet has helped break that monopoly but it still sucks.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Maybe if you had caught the policy speeches earlier in the campaign . . . ?
Being low on substance is a positive during an election campaign. It means that there is less for your opponents to attack.
The trick is to say nothing, commit to nothing, but to still seem decisive and visionary to the average voter.
Times reporting certainly has much more 'olol GOP fundies' than it does 'olol lefty Dems'.
In fact, the reason a lot of serious people read it (as well as the FT) is that it's still pretty much the only broadsheet left which isn't relentlessly biased one way or another.
Telegraph = Relentlessly Conservative. What's wrong with jaunting off abroad and killing the darkies, they like it! Rah rah blah blah.
Guardian = Batshit lefties. Stalinism a bit moderate. Fond of letting those lovely Taliban folk with their simple ways and quaint theocratic oppression, who are being cruelly slaughtered for peaceful protest against our corporate western stormtroopers.
Independent = Just batshit, but also lefty. Inherent inability to report the news people are interested in rather than some off-the-wall 9 pager about the plight of siamese goats in Monglia
FT = quality, but focus on business.
The Times is the only vaguely reasonable option remaining for general news.
Obligatory Yes Prime Minister Quote:
This is my problem, the policy speech transcripts I've seen are similarly weak on substance, that which there is being pretty misguided. Not even in a "I don't agree with the solution" way, but in a "the facts indicate this isn't even a problem".
I think he has a lot going for him, he seems to be preferable to all the other serious candidates (except for McCain), certainly there is a lot of international capital to be made in foreign policy from the perception of a black guy, left-leaning, immigrant family avec Muslims, as President.
But still, as far as I can see, his policies are based on some really shaky / populist / partisan presumptions - the generally populist economic ideas in particular are really not good. And his foreign policy, though it has potential, is so far: withdraw from Iraq. Otherwise, nothing.
Most of this would affect the US domestically rather than the rest of the world, but if I were still living there, that's enough to make me worry about him in the same way as Huckabee (ie scarce hints of his actual policies suggest that no substance = batshit substance); whereas I wouldn't have those concerns about Clinton or McCain.
Distinction I'm trying to make here:
Times reporting = balanced
Times op-ed writers taken as a whole = balanced
Individual op-ed writers are of course going to have a fairly strong view, or focus on particular issues, it's what they are paid for. But if you don't like that, don't read op-ed. It is after all, just opinion.
@Marlor: Obligatory yes, I thought about it, but was sure someone else would come up with it and save me the bother
PS Cat, I also humbly submit that what you find to be socially backward isn't necessarily what the rest of the world (certainly not the UK) find to be socially backward. I'm not entirely surprised that you think the Guardian to be more balanced, but I don't think that makes it more balanced.
It's hard for me to respond without knowing what you have seen.
Did you read his foreign policy article in Foreign Affairs?
No, which issue? I'll check it out now.
EDIT: NM, found it: July-August 2007, Renewing American Leadership?
Yes he is wasting his time running for president Pete Domenici's senatorial seat is up for grabs.
I just don't understand why he continued with running for president when one look at the losers running for senator, he could still be in a high level of goverment with it.
Or the wiki about it
David Gergen, a former White House aide under Republican and the Clinton administrations, pointed out that Iowa was not a strong state for Clinton from the start. "The Clintons are nothing if not resilient," he said. "They will fight back. For Barack Obama, this is a personal triumph. For an African-American to go into a state that's 95 percent white and win against Mrs. Clinton is an absolutely remarkable victory."
Seems a contradictory statement. It's not a strong state for Clinton, but it manages to be absolutely remarkable that she lost.
Requesting history protip: What nations have elected a minority to their highest government position?
Again, a lot of fluff and statement of principle, as well as a lot of generally accepted ideas presented as something slightly new. But the problem is with the substance.
1. Withdrawal of combat brigades from Iraq by March 31 2008? Is he kidding? The idea that Iraqi forces could take up security by then is absurd, even if the principle of Iraqi leaders sorting out the peace is good. But these principles aren't anything new: Iraq is a morass, the occupation was fucked up, Israel/Palestine affects the US...? It's just stating the obvious.
I am also highly skeptical of someone who, in what is clearly a campaigning article, argues for a schedule to be completed 6 months before he would be elected. It's a dodge: he avoids telling us what the Obama schedule would be in office.
2. Talk directly to Iran. One point, that's a specific policy change & stated intent.
3. Military. One direct proposal (addition of troops). Except that isn't a new proposal, that's a reversal of aspects of the Rumsfeld DoD 'transformation' which de facto cut troop numbers. So he's actually saying: go back to where we were 8 years ago.
Otherwise, there is two paragraphs of bluff. "I would use American troops wisely". Ok. Find me someone who campaigns to use them poorly? "providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training" Er...anyone saying we should give them shit kit? He's freewheeling with no substance.
Later: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military" What does this mean? The US military in Iraq and Afghan has been learning fast that to defeat insurgencies & terrorism, you need more of a 19th century colonial military than a 21st century RMA tech-driven force.
4. Nuclear weapons. Not tackling the problem that Russia don't want to co-operate on nukes, just saying we need co-operation. Proposes $50m for the IAEA to stop proliferation in a 'new' bank, ignoring the fact that the IAEA already does this: essentially proposing to give $50m for the IAEA to sort it out. $50m not much considering their budget.
5. Terrorism. "Insisting" rather than "requesting" a Pakistani crackdown. Please. That's rhetoric, not policy. Seems to totally misunderstand Pakistani politics: If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban. Fucks sake, the Pakistani govt. isn't cooperating with the Taliban at all, let alone to advance its interests. Tribal leaders and factions are co-operating with the Taliban because those ties are much older and stronger than the national borders defined in the mid-20th century. Bad error.
...and on and on. The rest is mostly fluff about international co-operation without many specifics. Suffice to say, he still seems to me to have a surfeit of nice rhetoric which has been mostly heard before, and a severe lack of actual policies or ideas. Fair enough, there are reasons for candidates not committing to specific policies too far in advance. But the stuff I've outlined above either demonstrates a lack of serious understanding of the situations, or proposes fluff policies or reversions of Bush policy, dressed up as change.
I won't even mention his environmental proposals, because although they are bollocks for reasons I've posted in other threads, they are also widely accepted bollocks, so he can't really be blamed. But I will say that proposing to 'free America from foreign oil' is fantasy, and his suggestions about a global low-energy carbon market are misleading and overstated (the major growing energy markets - in developing countries - have almost no interest in them being low-carbon).
My worry is that this is symptomatic of his campaign.
Pakistan.
Who?
I mean, Pakistanis aren't a minority in Pakistan, and though women are often described as minorities, they aren't actually minorities.
Also, if you do mean women, so have India, Britain, and many more.
REPUBLICANS: Ronald Reagan Library.
DEMOCRATS: Kodak Theater.
Well, to lay it out, and not counting the fact that any political party that isn't in the majority is considered to be a minority:
- Yes, I am referring to Bhutto.
- There are more men than women in Pakistan
- The literacy rate for women is 36%, making them very much a minority in terms of education level. Bhutto went to Oxford.
- Pakistan is 77% Sunni Muslim, Bhutto is Shia.
- Bhutto is Sindhi, which is 63% Sunni.
- Only 12% of Pakistanis speak Sindhi, as compared to 48% Punjabi.
But I guess if that's not what you were looking for, I could check for something along more conventional meanings of the word "minority".
I guess either one of those groups would be considered a minority.
Allthough I am not a Republican I want to go the only president library worth going to in California
The Richard M Nixon Pesidential Library
H: Well, at least Ron Paul got trounced, right?
M: Actually, he didn't do horribly. Pulled in 10-11% of the vote.
H: (pause) Are you kidding?
M: No, I'm serious.
H: What the hell? Was there a two drink minimum at the Iowa caucus?
It's 10%, I like how he tried to squeeze that extra percent out, and the worse part is that Rep. Paul actually got two delegates.