Being Canadian, I am a tad confused at to how the US elections work. I know that Iowa chose the 2 candidates who will run for president. But why does Iowa choose? Why not the rest of the US?
And now, I am reading about them going to the New Hampshire Primary? WTH is that? So confused!
from wikipedia:
Since 1972, the Iowa caucus has been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. Although only about one percent of the nation’s delegates are chosen by the Iowa state convention, the initial caucus has served as an early indication of which candidates for President might win the nomination of their political party at that party’s national convention.
in essence this is like an in-party poll to see who they should throw the party’s resources at in the best attempt for their party to win.
this is all like preliminary stuff currently.
I knew the republicans did damage to themselves in the past few years but not as much as this:
“Turnout in Thursday’s caucuses rose markedly, particularly for the Democrats, with 239,000 Democrats taking part - up from 124,000 in 2004.”
That’s insane. Almost double - so many more are going out there. Not a big increase for the republicans. Congrats to Obama…
Swear to fucken god , if my bible thumping republitard state fucks up again with this shit - that’s it. Game over. I’m moving to Canada.
Labbats, Cronenberg, Rush.
I’m down.
You forgot Bret Hart.
It is interesting to look at the effect having a midwest-red state as the litmus test for the viability of primary candidates. I’m thinking that’s behind Huckabee’s “surge”. He surely won’t fly in many of the more reasonable states and definitely isn’t a viable opponent for whoever the democrats turn out.
On the bright side, Ron Paul came in a decent 4th and is still in. Hopefully New “Live Free Or Die” Hampshire will do a better job.
I knew the republicans did damage to themselves in the past few years but not as much as this:
“Turnout in Thursday’s caucuses rose markedly, particularly for the Democrats, with 239,000 Democrats taking part - up from 124,000 in 2004.”
That’s insane. Almost double - so many more are going out there. Not a big increase for the republicans. Congrats to Obama…
This is good news. I thought for sure that The Dems had shot THEMSELVES in the foot by running an all minority ticket. Safe for Biden (who comes off like a fucken used car salesmen) and Edwards (who comes off like mommy’s good little boy)I thought that this country was still soooooo racist/sexist that Americans would turn out in droves to keep “the bleeder” and the “welfare recipiant” out of office. Glad to see it’s not as ugly as I had thought. ALTHOUGH, You can bet your ass that if Obama fucks up while in office he will not get the passes that W gets and the RACISM will come back. and you better beleive Oreily and Limbaugh will spread that racism around even if Obama does a sweet job!
Late,
grmpysmrf
I knew the republicans did damage to themselves in the past few years but not as much as this:
“Turnout in Thursday’s caucuses rose markedly, particularly for the Democrats, with 239,000 Democrats taking part - up from 124,000 in 2004.”
That’s insane. Almost double - so many more are going out there. Not a big increase for the republicans. Congrats to Obama…
Yeah but double the amount of dems showed up in 04 compared to 2000 (60k) as well and that wasn’t such a good year for them in the white house was it?
Also, Clinton got all of 3% of the votes in 92 when he was there. So don’t make too much out of these things yet.
reminder:
racism is a word that right out of the box is thought to be white vs. everyone else. which is understandable. However, complete bullshit. I grew up in a town where white christians was a minority, and i currently live in a city that is more than 50% black. So with that being said…
Racism is used BY all races, and not just whites. I don’t consider myself a racist - however, the fact that no other race is ever said to be racist is foolsh.
just my two cents. carry on.
reminder:
racism is a word that right out of the box is thought to be white vs. everyone else. which is understandable. However, complete bullshit. [/quote]
Really? I never thought that. i don’t think I even implied that.
I grew up in a town where white christians was a minority, and i currently live in a city that is more than 50% black. So with that being said…
Racism is used BY all races, and not just whites. I don’t consider myself a racist - however, the fact that no other race is ever said to be racist is foolsh.
All 3 of them? Yes only 3 races exist. (caucasoid,[caucasion] Mongaloid[mongolian], and Negroid [African Americans])Race is determined by the shape of your hair NOT skin color. So the whole “Christians are the minority where I grew up” can’t possibly be a race issue because christians AREN’T a race. You could call it elitist or prejudice probably even more descriptive CULTURALIST/ethnocentric. but not racist. “white people” can’t be Racist to mexican people because they ARE the same race just a Different Culture. and so and so forth
MANY cultures only, 3 (THREE) Races
[quote]just my two cents. carry on.
Sorry to cheapen your two cents
Late,
grmpysmrf
One strange thing I’ve noticed about this election as opposed to '04 is how little has been made of political endorsements. I remember in the last election when Al Gore endorsed Dean everyone said it was game over for all the other democrats, and then Kerry swept all the primaries and caucuses. Cold feet about picking the wrong candidate this time maybe?
One strange thing I’ve noticed about this election as opposed to '04 is how little has been made of political endorsements. I remember in the last election when Al Gore endorsed Dean everyone said it was game over for all the other democrats, and then Kerry swept all the primaries and caucuses. Cold feet about picking the wrong candidate this time maybe?
well the “oprah obama” endorsement has had legs for quite a while.
Late,
grmpysmrf
True, but I was thinking more along the lines of straight political endorsements. I.E. congressman “x” supports candidate “y”. Now that you bring it up though, with that exception there haven’t been a whole lot of celebrity endorsements this time either. Not that those mean a whole fuck of a lot, but still, seems odd.
True, but I was thinking more along the lines of straight political endorsements. I.E. congressman “x” supports candidate “y”. Now that you bring it up though, with that exception there haven’t been a whole lot of celebrity endorsements this time either. Not that those mean a whole fuck of a lot, but still, seems odd.
Well I think with a 20% approval rating congress carries NO credibility what-so-ever. I also think we are going to see another congressional overhaul next time around I think Congress knows this and are figuring why waste there breath, nobody really supports Congress right now anyway. nobody cares what they think because by doing nothing they are hurting the Avg American citizen worse than W and are therefore seen as liars and traitors. But having said all of that I think you are right we aren’t seening to much back scratching at all are we…good point
Late,
grmpysmrf
Sorry to cheapen your two cents
Late,
grmpysmrf
dude you missed my whole point by a mile. plus i didn’t say christian was a race - i said white christians. hell you even quoted me, and i didn’t say THEY were a race. also i didn’t say nor did i emply that you were being racist. whew… oy - you are too much dude. jesus chirst.
i guess you calling me names, saying that i am an eletist and pointing out that you shattered my two-cents proves that you got all your feathers in a mess.
[reply]
Sorry to cheapen your two cents
Late,
grmpysmrf
dude you missed my whole point by a mile. plus i didn’t say christian was a race - i said white christians.
What was your point? Also, “White Christians” is not a race. hell “white people” isn’t even a race.
hell you even quoted me, and i didn’t say THEY were a race. also i didn’t say nor did i emply that you were being racist. [quote]
It certainly seemed to me like you were implying they were a race. It also seemed to me that you were implying that I was generically throwing around the word racist.
[quote]whew… oy - you are too much dude. jesus chirst.
Calm down brother, i got no beef with you. I majored in Sociology, so subjects such as the point you were trying to make are touchy for me. I so often see/hear people interchange racism/prejudice/ ethnocentrism as if they’re the same thing and they’re not. I guess, like you, i was just trying to produce a little light on the subject, no disrespect.
[quote]i guess you calling me names, saying that i am an eletist and pointing out that you shattered my two-cents proves that you got all your feathers in a mess.[/reply]
ugh, I don’t belive i called you names at all let alone an elitist. I was using it as a broad term as for what to call ethnocentrics. i wasn’t stating it specifically at you. The two cents comment was my attempt at being cute. Sorry, didn’t mean to get you so angry.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Calm down brother, i got no beef with you. I majored in Sociology, so subjects such as the point you were trying to make are touchy for me.
Late,
grmpysmrf
fair enough.
All 3 of them? Yes only 3 races exist. (caucasoid,[caucasion] Mongaloid[mongolian], and Negroid [African Americans])Race is determined by the shape of your hair NOT skin color. So the whole “Christians are the minority where I grew up” can’t possibly be a race issue because christians AREN’T a race. You could call it elitist or prejudice probably even more descriptive CULTURALIST/ethnocentric. but not racist. “white people” can’t be Racist to mexican people because they ARE the same race just a Different Culture. and so and so forth
MANY cultures only, 3 (THREE) Races
Sorry to cheapen your two cents
Late,
You do realize that this is your OPINION based on one theory of the definition of the word “race” right? coming from a sociologist i’m surprised that you are this die hard on this physical anthropologist interpretation (vs cultural/social). since you are educated enough on it i’m sure that you realize that probably every other person in this country has a different opinion on what the word “race” means to them. so give some people some slack.
You do realize that this is your OPINION based on one theory of the definition of the word “race” right? [/quote]
Oh really? Quote me another “theory” on what defines race… You’re going to have to leave out ANY definition based on Culture because culture and Race are NOT THE SAME that is not OPINION that is FACT
coming from a sociologist i’m surprised that you are this die hard on this physical anthropologist interpretation (vs cultural/social).
Social or Cultural is NOT RACE. they can make up an aspect of race but soley race they do not make. British folks hell even southern american folks don’t keep the same folkways or mores. so does that mean we in california are the a different race than that of someone in say, Missippi? or Paris? I think not. I say again RACE and Culture are NOT THE SAME.
[quote]since you are educated enough on it i’m sure that you realize that probably every other person in this country has a different opinion on what the word “race” means to them. so give some people some slack.
You could be of the opinion that stars aren’t out during the “day time” and you would be wrong. Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they’re not there. You could be of the opinion that culture=race but that doesn’t make it so. you can have all the slack you want friend just so long as you have been told.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Well your obviously right on every subject you post on aren’t you? That is why you are so popular around here. you also throw the word “fact” around pretty liberally. who determined your exact definition of the word? because you wouldn’t want to use a dictionary for a that. now I’m not saying your definition is wrong (although you almost force me to because of your arrogant attitude) or right, i’m saying its just one of many potential correct interpretations of the word. i’m sorry that you can’t being to handle that. but i’m glad you found one that you feel so strongly about (3a,b). good for you.
–noun
- a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
- a population so related.
- Anthropology.
a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans. - a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
- any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
- the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
- Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
- a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
- any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
- the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.
–adjective - of or pertaining to the races of humankind.
Well your obviously right on every subject you post on aren’t you? [/quote]
Not on EVERY subject. But thank you for tallying
That is why you are so popular around here.
Your statement has nothing to do with anything…Maybe you are mistaking me for Jizzwad…and even Jizzwad doesn’t act like Jizzwad anymore So I’m at a loss… Sounds like you’re trying to stir the pot here, sir. Especially since My first post on this was to slacklove to which I have since aplogized…
you also throw the word “fact” around pretty liberally.
Really? I believe it was you who said “fact” first and I reiterated back at you.
who determined your exact definition of the word? because you wouldn’t want to use a dictionary for a that.
Who Coined this theory you mean? I don’t understand you if not. Not as if this question is relevent BUT…This had always been the working Def. for my classes where this subject had arisen.
now I’m not saying your definition is wrong (although you almost force me to because of your arrogant attitude) or right, i’m saying its just one of many potential correct interpretations of the word.
Aw… shucks now you’ve become grmpysmrf and I’ve become Jizzwad. I’m only arrogant/confident because this is my field of study. YOU wanna ramble on and on or be Mr. Knowitall in your feild of study help yourself I won’t come at you with Dictionary.com definitions to prove my quasi intellect.
no wonder Race relations have become so muddy Because EVERYBODY who get Horked by the man wants to become their own race.
i’m sorry that you can’t being to handle that. but i’m glad you found one that you feel so strongly about (3a,b). good for you.
Ugh Ok. thanks for you patronizing sentence.
DO I really need to break all of these down for you? because you know i will.
–noun
- a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
This Somewhat suppprts the Hair test because it has the heredity factor in it. But muddies the Waters with “the common descent.” IRish people are not a RACE no more than New Yorkers are a race.
- a population so related.
According to this DEF. Poverty is a race.
[reply]
3. Anthropology.
a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.
–adjective
11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.
If You so Wish I will do the rest of these but I am short on time at the moment
Late,
grmpysmrf Or Am I “the Wad” based on your behavior towards me, IDK