Algorithm Names Powell 'Ideal' Vice President Candidate 543
CWmike writes "Turns out the ideal vice presidential candidate for Sen. John McCain is the same person as the ideal vice presidential candidate for Sen. Barack Obama, according to a sophisticated online survey based on technology developed at MIT. Mr. Ideal? Colin Powell, a former U.S. Army general and former secretary of state. Affinnova's survey methods doesn't use the typical polling method of asking respondents to pick a name from a list. Instead, it gives respondents larger concepts, including photos, biographical information and possible first-term priorities. Affinnova calls this algorithm 'evolutionary optimization.' Steve Lamoureaux, the company's chief innovation officer, said of the VP finding: 'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'"
Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
.. same as the old boss.
'We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.'
What? The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are all the same? That unpossible!
too scientific (Score:2, Insightful)
By the way - I think he would make a great candidate for Veep.
Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices imo (Score:5, Insightful)
Powell strikes me as a vastly better civil servant than politician. But if Obama wins, he should definitely ask Powell to be Sec Def or Sec State. Hell, same with McCain for that matter. He was a good Sec. of State in an administration that didn't give two shits about him or his opinions, imagine what he could do if the President actually tried to make use of his experience and expertise.
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
Flawed candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Colin Powell was the face of the deception campaign the Bush administration orchestrated. He was the one who went to the United Nations, and made a whole bunch of claims that turned out to be false. He's damaged goods. Why on earth would someone suggest he'd be a good candidate in a year when the electorate is itching to repudiate everything about this war?
Empty Slate is liked by all! (Score:5, Insightful)
Shock and Amaze! A politician who has made almost no memorable positions known on any domestic policy beyond truism of cooperation is liked by everybody!
Of course he's a top pick by everybody--he's like Opera-- nobody knows what his actual beliefs and agenda is, therefore nobody disagrees with him. If Colin Powell were so audacious as to actually make his position known on a politically hot subject he would suddenly see his popularity plummet.
This is America. If you agree with me you're a good guy. If you don't, you're a muslim terrorist. The only way to be liked by everybody is to say nothing of consequence.
mmmkay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices i (Score:1, Insightful)
Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep hearing "McCain is too old" and then read other age-relative statements about VP selection and wonder who age really matters to. Yes, at the extreme, I worry about the ages of the candidates but only to the extent that it is extreme and has other impacts (eg, health or lack of experience).
But are there people out there who are like "Gee, he's too old" even when the candidate's age has no bona fide health impact? Do the same people think "Gee, he's too young" about someone younger? Obviously there's no health issue, but experience could matter a lot.
I don't think of age outside of physical health, but I worry from the way the media portrays McCain's age that we're falling a little victim to the cult of youth.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Including what is "best" for non-property-owners?
Re:mmmkay (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup, what the US really needs is a VP who has shown that he's willing to help out his boss by publicly giving excruciatingly bad "intelligence" to the United Nations.
Agreed. Whether he was duped or complicit, it doesn't matter. Powell blew any and all credibility he ever had.
Re:Empty Slate is liked by all! (Score:2, Insightful)
But I'll give you Wagner. What was he on about?
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to the rest of the world, he didn't. Everyone outside the US knew his presentation in the UN was a sham for the US public, and not for the world, since the rest of the world got to see the TV reports (funny how the US stations didn't carry them, hmmm ...) debunking his "findings" before he even presented them.
More like "Semi-Colin Powell" or "Up Your Colin Powell", since he's at best, a half-measure, and at worse, helped give everyone the shaft by presenting known lies as truth.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
As people age they're more likely to suffer health problems. Older people are significantly more likely to die or become incapacitated due to health. There's a certain amount of unrest with people at the idea of the president becoming incapacitated.
But what's this "cult of youth" and where can I join one? Does the YMCA host a local chapter?
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:3, Insightful)
We tried vp as runner up once. It ended up with a tie, and the kingmaker was killed by the loser (who became VP- Aaron Burr). Really, VP as a separate race is a horrible idea- it puts a completely different worldview 1 heartbeat away from the presidency. Too much temptation, even if not to the candidate then too his adherents.
Then the Algorithm is Retarded (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:2, Insightful)
*cough*FDR*cough*four term President*cough*
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since discussing basic policy is too hard, we just settle for hammering a guy for being old.
This line of discussion rarely, if ever, comes up in the context of the other two branches of government, for some reason.
Re:Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices i (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the fact is that he told his bosses the truth, and they didn't want to hear it. They told him to go speak a pack of lies, and he did. You can feel free to hold that against him, following orders is no excuse and all that. That doesn't change the fact that in the employ of an administration that wanted to listen to his honest opinions, he would be a tremendous asset.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:1, Insightful)
Why should I let a illiterate imbecile who does not live in my country vote about my future?
Well, for one thing, US citizens who live outside the USA still have to file & pay US taxes. There was a little phrase that played a large role in US history: "no taxation without representation"
Maybe you should read up on it.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should I let a illiterate imbecile (snip) vote about my future?
On similar lines:
Why should I let a uncouth non-college-graduate vote about my future ?
If you aren't smart enough to get a PhD, how can you decide what good for the entire country ? We should allow only PhD's to vote.
The simple answer to that is because its not just your future they are voting for, its their own future too. If you live in city, should the president you elect not have any powers to make any changes in the rural areas ? Why should an urbanite decide a farmers future. etc. etc.
Re:An alternative they didn't seem to face (Score:5, Insightful)
Any survey that says one of the primary party leaders would be the same person for either party is obviously in error.
Why? It reminds me of an example from a class I took once. Imagine you have a beach with two ice cream salesmen, for the exercise assume the customers are uniformly distributed, price is equal and they have no preference or loyalty. Now the theoretically optimal is obviously that they set up at 1/4 and 3/4, each getting half the beach and the customers walk as little as possible. But then, one of the ice cream salesmen decides to stand a little closer to the center, catching more than half. The other moves closer to compensate and so it goes. Eventually they'll stand right next to each other on the middle of the beach. With both fighting for the customers in the center, they'll become more and more equal until there's basicly no difference at all.
Try mapping it directly over to politics, with the customers as the voters and reps/dems as the icecream salesmen and the distance to the ice cream salesmen as the political distance. Everyone's fighting over the independent voters so both focus on what they want. I think what happened here is that you showed they're so close, if one is a little better at buzzword bingo it could "win" both sides. I think he should run for both parties, would be funny... Obama/Powell vs McCain/Powell, maybe it'd clue people in on how little choice they really have.
Algorithms... bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
People will say they want the person with the best tax policy, yet vote for the guy with the nicest shoes or looks like a hero. The Governator is only there because he dealt to the bad guys in the movies, not because of anything he's done in Real Life.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Insightful)
What of these would McCain himself represent? I'm willing to bet that most of them are imaginary just like Obama's Islamic ties.
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
thus it's not particulary suprising that they are very similar in certain policy.
more appropriately, I think it should be said that they "at least claim to be" very similar in policy.
As you said, "the more things change...". What's the last time any politician full-filled campaign promises, besides GWB, who's pretty much said he isn't pulling out of Iraq? As some of my friends, who never waste a chance to fire a few shots off, said: "The one thing about Bush, he'll been honest. He said he's screw up this country and he did!" *badda bing*
McCain's changing his stance as fast as Obama. There's more than enough sound clips out there of the two directly contradicting themselves in the hopes to obfuscate and confuse votes to make them believe they're on the right side. That's just par for the course. Has anything changed with the Democrat controlled congress? Nope, more Pork Barrel Ear Marked spending on pet projects and no balls to actually live up to their "out of Iraq" promises.
The only real record one has is the voting record, which Obama doesn't have as much history of as McCain.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Alot of people in McCains age group are racist, religious, sexist, homophobic and hold hatred"
nice that we all have our prejudices, isn't it?
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:1, Insightful)
Alot of people in McCains age group are racist, religious, sexist, homophobic and hold hatred toward countries for things that occured 70years ago.
A lot of people in Obama's group are good at basketball, like fried chicken, and have been in prison. Stereotypes suck and there's something especially ironic about saying that "His group are prejudiced" Pot.. kettle..
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think of age outside of physical health, but I worry from the way the media portrays McCain's age that we're falling a little victim to the cult of youth.
It's simple. Old people have nothing at stake in America's future.
Sounds harsh, but that's my take on it. I want someone at the helm who will actually have to go down with the ship if it runs aground on their watch.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
IQs under 90 points - you don't get to vote. (...)
Elementary education IS free AND mandatory.
You are old enough to vote but couldn't find time to learn to read yet?
Literacy rate is 99%+, so presumably those who haven't learned it, can't. In a poorer country I'd slap you silly for saying that though, do you think kids that can't read:
a) Have been just partying through their teens and never got around to it
b) Been forced to work from child age, and never got a choice
and that they might like to have a say in for example what the law says about that?
P.S. You do realize IQ tests get recalibrated right? So you'd always exclude the bottom 25%, no matter how high we raised the education level, not nearly that many are actually mentally handicapped. Not to mention such ugly things that IQ tests can be taught - sure there's a limit but without training you won't reach it. You'll have people studying for the IQ test instead of the SAT test, and oddly enough well educated people will come out on top. That kind of bullshit has been tried before to claim african-americans are less intelligent, but it's bogus. Now you want to take away their vote over it? Hell, I'd probably pass if you set it well past 100 and I still think it's a stupid idea.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have an older candidate, it is more likely they will die in office. So whoever they pick as VP is very important to a lot of people.
The concerns for McCain are valid. He would be the oldest first term president in our history (and does have a huge history of medical problems).
Maybe the country is tired of being ruled by old, white men...but I don't think we are victims of this "cult of youth" you speak of. Age is certainly more of a factor than the fact that Obama's name is close to Osama, that his middle name is Hussein, and that he didn't wear a flag pin since birth.
Re:Webb, Richardson, or Clark are better choices i (Score:3, Insightful)
The honorable thing to do in that situation would have been to resign immediately. Either he did what he was told by his boss, against his conscience, or he lied consciously, or he was duped. Neither looks good on his resume.
Computers make great choices, (Score:-1, Insightful)
when you are the one that decides what they chose. Electronic voting machines work the same way.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alot of people in McCains age group are racist, religious, sexist, homophobic and hold hatred toward countries for things that occured 70years ago.
Interesting. Yet parent post offers no evidence, citations, or examples to back up this assertion. It is a value judgment placed upon a societal segment without being encumbered beforehand by any facts.
Can you say "prejudice"?
Very good!
Now, can you say "ageist"??
BTW, I will be voting for Obama. In one of those weird ironic twists, I think Obama has a better handle on how to fix this country's age prejudice than McCain does, even though Obama hasn't been on the carousel for anywhere near as many go-rounds.
Re:Obama & Powell (Score:4, Insightful)
The interesting thing is that qualities that make Powell an good candidate (intelligent, honest, outsider) are the same qualities that Obama seems to posess.
Maybe you should state it like this instead:
The interesting thing is that the qualities that I see in Powell that make him a good candidate are the same qualities that I see in Obama.
I would call the intelligence and honesty of both Obama and McCain into question. They are just good politicians.
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has anything changed with the Democrat controlled congress? Nope, more Pork Barrel Ear Marked spending on pet projects and no balls to actually live up to their "out of Iraq" promises.
Oh yes, let's blame the Democrats. They are in a situation which is unwinnable. They have tried to pass many times an Iraq timetable but it doesn't get past the senate because it doesn't have any Republican support and/or Bush will veto it anyways. Without overwhelming support in the house and senate it can't survive the veto. And that's not going to happen because the White House is playing partisan politics because Bush can't stand to lose.
Also, the Democrats have to vote for more war spending because if they don't they are sacrificing our military, and that doesn't go over well with any voter, whether you're blue state or red state.
Giving Bush his war will hopefully weigh on many of our elected officials for the rest of their lives. They are all guilty of being fed false information and not taking the time to question it. As one of the few who voted against it, Obama is literally the only sane choice for president. That is, unless you would like to have a war with Iran as well?
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not immensely knowledgeable about politics, but a lot of people feel that the US government has pretty much become a 2-party competition, and elected officials generally follow party lines. So, depending on the context of the comment, it could either be a compliment or an insult.
As a compliment, you can think of him as someone who thinks outside of the normal party lines. I believe McCain has co-sponsored bills with Democratic members of Congress. While this would seem to be common sense (being able to compromise with others), not everyone views that way. Some look at his as being disloyal or maybe not tough enough.
McCain has been called "not conservative enough" by some, and that was meant as an insult. They worry that he won't push the traditionally Republican viewpoints (opposition to abortion, for example).
It probably doesn't need to be pointed out, but US politics is in poor shape. It's not the fault of either party, but a collective failure. I'm not sure exactly when, but it almost feels like the venom in government got considerably stronger during Bill Clinton's presidency. I'm not saying its his fault, but if you look at Clinton, then George W. Bush, and now this round of campaigning, it seems like politics has just become petty and people are focusing on the smallest, silly things. I'm not necessarily an Obama support, but there were some press trying to question his patriotism because he wasn't wearing a US flag pin. Just silly.
As for effective government, don't make me laugh. The bureaucracy is just ridiculous. Most people in government (both elected official and civil servants) aren't interested in making a difference. They just want the status quo and to continue living off tax revenue.
Sorry for an unfocused and slightly rambling comment. I spent a couple of years working in government, and it was just very depressing to see how low the bar was set.
Re:Obama & Powell (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with those who dispute Obama's honesty, but I can't say that it's an illegitimate discussion to have; there is evidence (which I personally consider weak and uncompelling) which can be used to make a case to that effect.
On what reasonable grounds can Obama's intelligence be disputed? The man graduated from Harvard at the top of his class. He's a published author, and (in my view as a reader) a damned good one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if you're going to argue that Obama is unintelligent, you need to provide some support -- as the contrary evidence is quite compelling indeed.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will never happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
When Condoleezza Rice took over the State Dept. after Powell's resignation, she found that State had been walled off from the rest of the administration. In order to find out anything or have any impact on what was happening in Iraq, she had to clandestinely circumvent both Donald Rumsfeld's and Paul Bremer's organizations and send her own unauthorized diplomats to Iraq. And this was Rice, one of Bush's trusted inner cabal (which is also the only reason she could get away with this).
How much more would Powell have been cut out of the loop of the inner workings of the Bush Admin and their desire to start a war which Powell was against? Why would they have shown him all the faults with the intelligence, knowing his opposition to the war and tendency to not be a yes-man (the whole reason he was so isolated) when they could instead just say "We're know you're against this, Powell, but here's our slam-dunk case that Saddam is an immediate threat and we just want you to present these facts to the U.N. as is your job."
I can't prove it. It's just given the obvious exclusion of Powell from the inner circle, Richard Clarke's consistent statements that Powell had argued against the war, the secrecy and readiness of the admins to withhold information, and even Powell's willing admission that regardless the U.N. speech is a permanent blot on his record, that he was in fact a victim of circumstances.
He did choose those circumstances, and stay in them far longer than one would think, for sure, and I think it's fair to hold that against him. War criminal complicit in the conspiracy? I just don't think so.
Re:Will never happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I, nor any white man I know, is racist.
Well, congratulations on yourself, but how do you know nobody you know is racist? You're white, so they aren't going to be racist against you. And if they know you consider yourself to proudly be non-racist, why would they reveal that to you? Or, maybe, you just don't know the right subset of the population, don't live in the right areas. Is where you live mono-cultural? As in nobody says anything bad about blacks because there aren't any around to bother them? Do you live in a truly integrated neighborhood/city? It seems like it's mostly in the conflict areas, white-dominated areas facing a minority 'incursion', where this happens...
Cus I've certainly met some of them. I've had people openly express their racism to me, under the assumption that I'd be sympathetic as another white man (which I mostly am). I've heard people openly slander blacks in their earshot, even store owners talking trash while black customers are in their store. From Chicago to New York to Texas, I've heard some vile, vile racism.
I can't say this nicely, I assure you I mean nothing personal, but it seems to me the only ones who say there is no anti-black racism in America are simply sheltered from it.
Not that this is ultimately a bad thing... I believe racism is learned, and the more people are simply not exposed to it, and grow up wondering how or why anyone could be racist, the better the next generation will be.
White Americans are, by and large, afraid of even being thought of as racist.
That doesn't mean they aren't. It means they're going to be much less likely to be openly racist unless they're safely among their friends. And even then, not always, but those are the worst cases. Your "average" racist is simply going to leave their mouth shut and wield their racism more subtly.
And given what I've seen and heard, I shudder to think of what would be said and done if there weren't such a huge stigma against it.
We can see the same thing, more obviously, with homophobia. It's starting to get less and less acceptable to be openly anti-gay, at least in the more progressive parts of society, while absolutely not the case in the less-progressive. But has this actually made all these people unwilling to gay-bash into non-homophobes, or has it just made them reluctant to express their discomfort and disgust? Isn't that the inherent joke of "not that there's anything wrong with that", a superficial statement of tolerance that immediately follows a vehement rejection of the very concept?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Find me an old person that believes they drive more poorly now than before because of their reflexes. Having many relatives make it to 80+, I haven't found one yet. The *only* reason I know of an old person electing to not drive again is eyesight. Otherwise, they demand the world adapt to them.
Driving at a speed suitable for their poor reflexes?
Often impossible. On an interstate where the road is marked at 65, and drivers tend to be at or above that speed, an old person is unsafe driving the same as everyone else, and they are unsafe driving 10 mph below everyone else because of the disruption to traffic. So it is either that you hold back all able bodied persons, or you ban the drivers unable to intermingle with the rest of the population safely.
Nevermind that many people that age drive completely like normal folks.
There is one person I wouldn't ever ride with. She drives like crap, and taught her children to drive like crap. I pulled up to her once at a light. I recognized her and waved. No response. I rolled down my window and shouted. No response. I honked. I could see others looking at me, but she didn't. I don't know where her mind is when she is in a car, but it certainly isn't on her surroundings. That's standard. My dad drove into an intersection to make a left turn. One of those people that pulls half way in and waits for everyone to go before completing the turn. Well, he got disoriented and couldn't figure out which way he was supposed to go to get out of the intersection. While he was there, confused, the lights changed. One of the feeders into the road had limited visibility, and someone came around the corner and broadsided him. But that was long after I stopped riding with him. It only took a few times of running over curves, going the wrong way on a one-way and such before I realized he was unsafe and shouldn't have a license. But it's not like repoting anyone helps. He let it expire, took the test and failed, but the testing lady felt sorry for him and passed him anyway. Or at least that was his version of the events, and given his inability to drive safely, I believe it.
Your first point about them realizing their limitations is just plain wrong. Old people think that they are just fine. They didn't slow down, the world sped up. They are safe illegally cruising in the left lane at 20 mph under the limit. My dad told me that he can't see to change lanes (for being ancient, he never used his mirrors) so he just changes lanes slowly and aborts if someone honks. He used to turn his head to look, but now when he does that he runs off the road so he stopped. And he's typical of old people. Perhaps a little worse than some. But he's someone I've seen go from poor but barely acceptable driving to horribly unsafe driving. And the whole time, he thought he was just fine. He turns 78 this year.
They LIVE in the world of today, it's their world too even if they're not the young and hip anymore. Just because you're not happy with their opinions, what makes them less valid than your own?
Because one of the important parts of being a leader is vision. If you aren't living for the future, you are dwelling in the past. A young leader with a vision of the future to work for will make the world better for the young and old, while an old leader with an idealized memory of the past will make the world better for a select few, if any.
Oh god, how I think this one can be turned around. Make all the highschoolers and college kids that have never had a real job take a "maturity test" if they really understand enough to vote. Something tells me you'd see huge dropouts at both ends and only a power elite left to vote.
I don't see a problem with that. Some 12 year olds would pass the test with flying colors, and others would make it into their 40s without ever passing. A good number that are better
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really tired of that argument. The Republicans rammed their agenda down the Democrats' throats when the Republicans had a small majority. Given how hated the Republican Party is right now, the Democrats could easily crush Republican resistance if they did pulled all the parliamentary dirty tricks that the Republicans were famous for, if the Democrats did their PR right and IF THEY HAD THE COURAGE, but they keep rolling over EVERY G*D*MN time the neo-con attack machine barks.
The Democrats are completely in charge of setting the Congressional agenda. They don't have to propose anything they don't want to, and there's nothing the Republicans can do about that. They could shut Republicans out of making any sort of legislation at all, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. The Democrats could refuse to allocate any money at all for Republican pet projects, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. They can make the Republicans do song-and-dance routines on the Senate floor to keep a filibuster going, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about that. The Democrats could do public investigations on all of the most-corrupt neo-con leader finances, and there's nothing the Republicans could do about it. But the Democrats KEEP ROLLING OVER.
The Democratic leadership MOST DEFINITELY bears a huge responsibility for continuing the status quo, as does people like you who keep making excuses for them.
You do remember how the Vietnam War was ended, right? Congress refused to allocate any more funding for it - and suddenly, it was over.
We can either end it now, bring everyone home, and try to use what resources we have left to lick our wounds & repair our crumbling infrastructure, or we can wait until we have NO RESOURCES left, and then they'll have to come home anyway, back to a collapsing economy where it's hard to find a job, and we're hated by the world even more then we are now - especially if we attack Iran!
The _only_ reason Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld haven't been perp-walked by now is because the Democratic leadership doesn't have the courage to do what is necessary to crush the neo-con leadership & restore the Rule of Law to this country.
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:1, Insightful)
What? The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are all the same? That unpossible!
Funny, the last 8 years have been a lot different than the previous 8 years. And not just regarding things like the war in Iraq or Gitmo. Read the news regarding legislation, or watch C-SPAN, or look into how the Supreme Court has dramatically changed its interpretation of certain laws. The "Demopublican/Republicrat" is fine if you're in high school and college, don't follow the issues, but don't want to appear ignorant, but after a certain age you have to either admit your ignorance or actually inform yourself.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Insightful)
This line of discussion rarely, if ever, comes up in the context of the other two branches of government, for some reason.
Because having one congressman out of >600 kick the bucket isn't that big of a deal. Loosing a president is.
With justices, congress isn't given a list of folks to choose from. If they were I'm sure that everyone would be considering how long a justice could be sitting on the court when making their decision. But as it is, age is not a valid reason to reject the selection of an otherwise acceptable justice, so there's not much to be said about it outside the closed doors of the president's nominee selection process.
Re:Algorithms... bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, irrational thought can be modelled if it can be adequately characterized. But to do that we need to know what the true indicator variables are. For example, people might say they buy the most healthy bread, but we know they tend to buy the one in the red wrapper, then we can ask a bunch of bogus smoke-screen questions and just focus on color of the wrapper. Figuring this out takes a lot of iterations.
However, when it comes to on-off events like elections and voting it is often a lot harder. Each election is different, with different combinations of burning issues, presidential candidates, fashions etc etc so we don't really get to know what the true variables are: we don't know if they will actually go for the guy with the nice shoes, the tall guy or the guy with the biggest hat.
"Not Me!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of racism to go around! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am absolutely sick and tired of this "white America is overtly racist".
Well, white America is overtly racist. I know you talk about social chastisement for being a racists white but I've never met a white guy that wasn't popular for making a black joke every now and then. You really just need to quit pretending that there is any other case. It's just a fact of life. People that think that a few speeches by Martin Luther King and a couple of segregated schools can change the attitudes of a nation in a generation are utterly stupid. Being racist, in many people's eyes, is that they aren't allowed to call black people n---rs any more, and so, because they don't do that, they don't see themselves as racist...
except that...
More white people, if they see a black guy in a Lexus getting pulled over by the cops, will assume that the guy was doing drugs or is some kind of a gangster than a guy with a business or an advanced degree. If alone, they'll cross the street when they see more than one black guy.. if with a bunch of people, they'll sing Sweet Home Alabama and make that black guy go to another block. How is it in America that we have major corporations investing billions of dollars in building up data centers in places from the phillipines to india and you don't as much as even a server placed in an inner city?
There's plenty of white people too, that say that would prefer a white quarterback to their favorite NFL team. There's more to white America than a few suburban towns. All you have to do is take a drive through the civil war museums and you'll find that Confederate flags and merchandise sells on par with that of the Union. If you go into prisons, you immediately find that whites all band up into neo-nazi gangs, and, if there is a criticism of the right wing these days about religion, it is that christianity, with its message of peace, has been used to pollute the white race.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that we'd see confederate flags -everywhere-, should Obama get elected. Like he's seriously going to get a lot of votes in the South.. Come on... where's all the black NASCAR drivers? I see confederate flags more now, than I ever have before. I live in a mixed neighborhood and you have the white side of the street with guys flying the Stars and Bars and on the black side of the street you have a bunch of black guy dressed up like gangstas. People do not talk to each other -at all-, and its no different than it was when blacks and whites were throwing bricks at each other during the race riots of the early 1980s.
If there's any institution out there that is -not- racist, it is the membership of pro sports teams, and the US military. There's plenty of white soldiers that don't like blacks and plenty of whites that don't like black, but, when a black man saves a white man's life, and vice versa, things like race just don't matter, and, in this present war, there's an aweful lot of that going on.
This isn't to say that whites are all devils (Farrakhan joke deliberate), or that blacks are angels. It is to say that racism is far from dead in the USA and quite honestly I do not think it will ever be. There will never be a day where we do not have to have some sort of affirmative action in university or even in some workplaces. There will never be a day where we do not have to constantly police ourselves to ensure that people are not being judged on anything different than their ability. Racism isn't like a disease that you cure, its a chronic condition that requires persistent and determined management by the nation, the government, companies and finally the people.
Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama is half-black and half-white. It's odd that many people forget that.
It's not that odd; it's just that in the US, 1/2 black + 1/2 white = 1 black.
Re:The Race Card. Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only racists I have ever met have been black, Mexican (ie, 1st or 2nd generation American inhabitants), and Asian (Chinese and Japanese). I once heard of a crazy motherfucker named Dewey, who was always talking about killing niggers, but he's the exception to the rule, and was chastised and shunned as a result.
Read this Katrina relief forum [craigslist.org] or comments to any online article about the poor, and then decide if white people are not (also) racist. It's prejudice to say that any group is more racist, and I've heard horrible things from all sides! It all depends on where you are and who you meet. I can't read comments on any newspaper site without encountering horribly disgusting racism. You must know some great people, because I've met *so* many racist people here (FL/GA/LA). Or perhaps many white people are just too chicken to speak the words in public--instead they rely on the veil of secrecy provided by online forums. It'd be great if more of the general populace could learn some empathy.
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:4, Insightful)
HERE HERE!
Old people drive horribly! Most are either too proud or too old to realize they have serious shortcomings in the mental and physical aspects.
Example? My grandfather, at 80, is a serious threat to himself, my grandmother, and anyone else on the road. Take one ride with him and you'll have to change your underwear, no joke. Still driving? Of course! Blinded severely on his left side (oncoming traffic)? Sure! Any plans to stop driving? Nope.
Your bit about older people not looking to the future is very interesting. Since government passes laws in present that have impacts on the future, it is essential that our elected leadership has the future in mind when making decisions.
Old people should be living with their families, not passing the last years in a care home or lonely in their own. Our sense of self-interest has gone so far in this country that divorce is alarmingly high (wife? who? kids? what?), relatives are left to rot, and communities are suing each other instead of working together.
American Culture sucks. To generalize: Fat, selfish, hasty, materialistic... garbage.
Re:Powell: Stupid or Spineless? You decide! (Score:4, Insightful)
I supported the war because Iraq never honored their obligations of the armistice agreement that ended the first gulf war. I also his whipping Clinton around and defying UN resolution after resolution with no real consequences as a major motivating factor in what gave Al Qeada the balls to hit innocent civilians instead of sticking to military targets. We demonstrated time after time that we were all bark and not bite. I seriously think If Clinton would have went in after the first time inspectors were removed, 9/11 and other precursors that lead up to what we have today would have never happened.
Sure, but that isn't a sign of not using overwhelming force. The force just moved on. Perhaps too soon or inappropriately but they moved on. The fact is that the Iraqi army more or less disbanded themselves from the role of an organized force.
Again, the force moved on. It isn't a sign of not enough force as much as an improper use of the force. Those calls were made in the field by leaders pulling the trigger.
And there is the famous story about the soldier standing there watching it who said to a reporter that he couldn't do anything without orders. The munitions depots locations probably weren't well known until after they were raided but an essential part of the plan was to allow chaos for a short period of time before order was restored to reinforce the notion that the old regime isn't in power. Don't blame faults of the plans or management of the plans on a lack of force. The simply aren't the same things.
Lol.. Down to name calling because of your ignorance are we? First, we went in with overwhelming force. Second, because we didn't properly use that force or in hind site not effective use that force isn't the same thing as not having it. Basically, the troops went too fast for the military strategists to analyze the situation. We had a point of information overload where a report was literally outdated by the time it took to proof rad it and print it up. The command structure grew too small for the tasks and soldiers were waiting on orders because commanders were playing catch up. The mismanagement of phases and transitions to other phases of the plan as well as problems effecting the command efficiently doesn't mean we didn't have enough force nor did it mean that the force wasn't there.
You see, what you have complained about doesn't mean what you want it to mean. This is especially true when you follow the events that were going on in Iraq as we were going in. I know some people who were in the position of aggregating the battlefield reports and they verify the few news report
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton wasn't so bad. He was so transparently awful once he got in that he lost congress for his party, and became distracted by extra-curricular activities with coeds.
Which gave us nearly six years of blessed fighting between the executive branch and half of congress. We even had a temporary government shut-down. (as in.. not long enough, but almost better than nothing. At least as proof of concept it was useful)
I won't say much for Clinton, but I will say this: He certainly was pretty ineffective. And for that, he'll go down in history as not-the-worst President in the 20th century.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course if I were making the eligibility rules, "elitist jerks" would be the first ones I would exclude....doh!
Re:Who does age matter to? (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying "Most old people are evil old bastards" is just as wrong as saying "Most (Jews/blacks/Muslims) are evil bastards" even if you hold out the possibility that not all of them are. You're accusing an individual of holding prejudices based on a prejudice. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Re:Meet the new boss... (Score:3, Insightful)
What a great idea! The guy who lied to the United Nations, the guy who covered up the My Lai massacre, the guy who led the USA into the Iraq fiasco... as a VP!
whatcouldpossiblygowrong