US '12 Presidential Update

US '12 Presidential Update

For the benefit of all of those of us in Europe, Asia, Antarctica and elsewhere, that is, for everybody who doesn't hang feverishly on every flash event in the upcoming Presidential election here, those who do will post here from time to time with tidbits that might just well affect your well-being in terms of incineration, etc.

Speaking of Ron Paul, I read this the other day on the DailyPaul at www.dailypaul.com & found it extremely interesting.

I want to know what people think about it (After they read it completely that is).

Ron/Rand Paul VP slot is BEST-CASE SCENARIO.

Time Magazine is floating a story that the RP camp is "discreetly" talking to Mitt's campaign about a VP trade-off.

I know this puts a bad taste in our mouths and a lot of Ron Paul supporters would overreact, calling him a "sellout".

That is, of course, a ridiculously unproductive response to this story. It is utterly wrong, as well. Ron Paul will NEVER sellout.

In fact, it's disgusting to me that so-called "supporters" would accuse Ron of such a thing. It's disgusting they are so blind, reactionary and, frankly, so stupid as to openly threaten to abandon Ron Paul.

A Ron Paul or Rand Paul VP slot is the absolute best-case scenario at this stage of the game. It would be huge. It would be tremendous. It would shake up the political world.

We better HOPE and PRAY this happens.

Once the primaries are over, once Mitt (or Jeb Bush) is chosen as the nominee, the media will then have no reason to cover RP. He will be completely blacked out and censored. Do you get that? Hello?

If Ron or Rand is chosen as a VP, THEY will hold Mitt's feet the fire. THEY will be the deciding vote in the Senate. THEY will be a heartbeat away from the presidency. THEY will tremendously influence policy.

Rick Santorum is an ideologue.

Newt Gingrich is an ideologue.

Mitt Romney is a politician. His positions are clearly malleable. He's probably not even that well informed, and considering Ron Paul's "friendship" with him, their wives camaraderie, it's possible Paul realizes Mitt could be influenced and educated, unlike the other guys.

This is realpolitik, folks. Sadly, if RP goes this route, he'll lose the support of some very short-sighted supporters. That's just the price we'll have to pay. In the end, I think any RP supporter will still show up to vote for RP, even if they have to vote for Mitt as well.

Frankly, I'd vote for an Obama/RP ticket.

Don't you get it? RP will NEVER SELL OUT. HE WILL NEVER COMPROMISE! He doesn't matter who he's running with.

YOU SUPPORT RON PAUL NO MATTER WHAT. You never abandon him. He knows what he's doing. Trust in his decisions.

All this garbage I hear from "supporters" saying they'll remove support if he runs as a VP is sickening to me. WAKE THE HELL UP. You think RP created libertarianism? It's been around for ages. The libertarian party has been around for ages. If you think running third-party or turning down a VP slot changes anything, you're wrong. We'll be at the back of the bus like we've always been.

Work with the system we have and CHANGE IT FROM WITHIN. Ron Paul knows that......

continued


What do you think?

Do you agree with the article? Yes/No...Why?

How would you feel about a Romney/Paul 2012 Ticket?

Seriously, according to sources, including the NY Times & the LA Times, the Pauls & the Romneys may be closer friends than most might expect.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

What do you think?

I think it is a horrible thought.
A spineless, Keynesian, cultist with no integrity whatsoever and RP who has the most spine of any politician I've ever listened to and absolutely abhors Keynesian economists.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

How would you feel about a Romney/Paul 2012 Ticket?

Disturbed, deeply disturbed.
If such was the case, it would be only for Romney to try to gather up the most loyal of political followers, Paulians.
I don't think the spineless cultist could stand 4 years with us breathing down his neck when he effs up and continues the 43rd and 44th Presidents foreign policies and calls for 10 year cuts to the deficit which amount to nothing.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

the Pauls & the Romneys may be closer friends than most might expect.

I'll believe it when I see it. The RNC would go apeshite if that happened. The RNC is about as close to fascism as you can find in America. I think that some would literally blow their brains out if Romney picked Paul for the Veep.

Ron Paul in '24!

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Disturbed, deeply disturbed. If such was the case, it would be only for Romney to try to gather up the most loyal of political followers, Paulians. I don't think the spineless cultist could stand 4 years with us breathing down his neck when he effs up and continues the 43rd and 44th Presidents foreign policies and calls for 10 year cuts to the deficit which amount to nothing.

So is that a YES I'd vote for Romney if Dr. Paul was on the ticket, or NO freekin' way, I love Dr. Paul, but all his cheese must have slid off his cracker, & he's finally lost it?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Disturbed, deeply disturbed. If such was the case, it would be only for Romney to try to gather up the most loyal of political followers, Paulians. I don't think the spineless cultist could stand 4 years with us breathing down his neck when he effs up and continues the 43rd and 44th Presidents foreign policies and calls for 10 year cuts to the deficit which amount to nothing.

So is that a YES I'd vote for Romney if Dr. Paul was on the ticket, or NO freekin' way, I love Dr. Paul, but all his cheese must have slid off his cracker, & he's finally lost it?

I'll get back to you on this, if and when it happens.
I just don't see the good Congressman teaming up with the Jellyfish. It's about like having peace in the Middle East; unimaginable to me.

I wonder. Americans are starting to shake off the cob webs of 2010, & after a long yawn & glancing at the national news they see Obama demonizing Romney & trying to distance himself from his own record , & Romney demonizing Obama & while trying to dodge Obama's endless attacks, attempts to define himself as everything Obama can't manage to be.

In the end 23 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have simply lost hope & left the work force. It is starkly apparent that President Obama cannot ask the American people "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

He has no escape except to abandon optimism, & embrace pessimism in his bid for another 4 years.





What do you think?





How can Obama hope to convince the American People that he deserves 4 more years without a record to support such a request, or even a positive message of his own, & that based on his prior track record of not keeping his grand promises, who could blame the American People if they were extremely skeptical of his sincerity this time around?

Will the country still be in a financial mess? - Will it still be straining to daftly maintain over 200 military points around the globe - Be in hock the Red China whoever wins? Yep.

Have you officially endorsed Willard Romney, SF?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Have you officially endorsed Willard Romney, SF?

Well, to be honest it sure looks like it will be Romney, but then again fate could cause a drowsy driver to T-Bone Mitt's car in a freak accident causing the gas tank to explode.

Nahh dawg, I think I'll wait till after the National GOP Convention.

One thing I do know is unless you can find me a red grasshopper, one that can split a watermelon in half, & then proceed blindfolded to kick all the seeds out of both halves-----in less than 10 minutes-----I'll be endorsing & voting for the Republican Nominee,,,,,whomever he may be.

I will also be suggesting to everyone, everyone who does not want Obama to have a second term in the White House that is, to do exactly the same.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Nahh dawg, I think I'll wait till after the National GOP Convention.One thing I do know is unless you can find me a red grasshopper, one that can split a watermelon in half, & then proceed blindfolded to kick all the seeds out of both halves-----in less than 10 minutes-----I'll be endorsing & voting for the Republican Nominee,,,,,whomever he may be. I will also be suggesting to everyone, everyone who does not want Obama to have a second term in the White House that is, to do exactly the same.

Hmm, so as it's likely to be ole Willard (although Dr. Paul is still doing well in grabbing delegates in numerous states), what you are suggesting is rewarding the Republican Party for it's continued straying from it's roots of Austrian economics, a humble but strong national defense (does not include MIC-induced wars) and it's original long-standing tradition of standing up for all people.

What it's been transformed into, since the time of The Crook Nixon and the Great Pretender in the 80's, is a party that panders to the uber-religious, a party that abandoned Austrian economics in favor of the Dem favorite, Keynesian economics, and a party that all but gives an hourly blowjob to the MIC. Throw in the fact that LIncoln would be ashamed of the Republican Party abandoning it's Abolitionist roots (and standing up for everyone, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, etc) and as the Brits would say that pretty much "bob's your uncle".

I see no immediate desire on 1/2 of the Party to go back to those roots. Indeed, Romney has already stated he favors Keynesian economics, MIC-induced wars, the disaster of an economic plan that was the 43rd President's plan (Gut the Big 3 and give it to the military), and he has made it clear that he will pander to the religious right and say damn to the rest.

^^ "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." -Barry Goldwater '64


How will Romney attract the other 3 groups that make up the Repub party? (Moderates, Libertarians)
How will he attract the Latino vote? The Independent and disaffected Dem vote?

I don't much care to vote for an individual who doesn't align anywhere near my views. As such, barring a Paul run, Gary Johnson seems to the best candidate to receive my vote. His views align with mine a lot closer than does Willards.

You had all better start groaning boys because the Chicago community worker is going to be still tending the front lawn flowers for a while yet.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Hmm, so as it's likely to be ole Willard (although Dr. Paul is still doing well in grabbing delegates in numerous states), what you are suggesting is rewarding the Republican Party for it's continued straying from it's roots of Austrian economics, a humble but strong national defense (does not include MIC-induced wars) and it's original long-standing tradition of standing up for all people.

No reward dawg......they ain't nowhere's close to perfect, but I'd rather a lifetime dealing with their kind--all the while changing it from within, than rewarding Obama & his pARTY's America Killing Agenda 4 more years. A 3rd party vote by 60% of the Independent & Libertarian factions would make rewarding Obama with 4 more a sure thing. Mark my words...even if all the 3rd party supporters donated the lungs of their first born, no 3rd party candidate will win----in 2012 anyway.

That said....... My sincere hope is for Dr.Paul, to effectuate change from within, either through his own Presidency, Vice Presidency, or a high level position where he can have the Candidate come President's ear on vital policy. His chance of anything close to that if Obama should (gag) somehow get another 4 years is slim to nil......And you can take that to the bank dawg.

Do what you must dawg, I respect that, but please promise me just one small thing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, think of what 4 more years of Obama would mean to you your Country for 2 short minutes -----120 lil seconds----before you pull that lever to secure your precious vote. I sure would appreciate knowing you would at least do that.

Every once and a while, Willard acts like he has a brain. This time, he admits that the GOP legislators' plan of cutting spending now will likely cause another recession (the CBO predicated a recession in the early part 2013 with the spending cuts. The GOP refrain had been "You don't increase taxes in recession." You also don't make a lot of spending cuts; you do that in times of economic growth. Maybe his economic policy won't be as horrifically stupid and job-killing as the Tea Party's.

Gah, whenever you call him Willard it reminds me of rats

Awww, don't hate on him just because of his pets. There's plenty of other reasons to not vote for him, even if he told the truth this one time.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Awww, don't hate on him just because of his pets. There's plenty of other reasons to not vote for him, even if he told the truth this one time.

You should know that I have no problem with rats
They do have standards

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I'll be endorsing & voting for the Republican Nominee,,,,,whomever he may be.

Now, there's a shocker. My wild guess is that you always vote Democrat...

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I'll be endorsing & voting for the Republican Nominee,,,,,whomever he may be.

Now, there's a shocker. My wild guess is that you always vote Democrat...

Over my voting lifetime I voted for quite a few local government democrats, Ed Koch being one.

I became a registered Republican just after the 1980 elections, & prior to that I was a registered democrat.

On the National level (including Representatives), I have voted for far far more Republicans than Democrats.

I am, as of 2006, a registered Independent. I have no allegiance to any political party, & never will.

I would guess that unlike yourself, I keep an open mind when addressing my political endorsements & support, but I will say beyond a shadow of doubt, the most conservative candidate will most definately get my greatest attention. Basic Constitutional issues, & their stance on them, is also extremely important. I am what one could call a Constitutionalist. Big Government & Progressive/Socialistic candidates are almost never considered (I voted for Jacob Javits over Ramsey Clark in the '70s).

I am proud to be a member of the American Tea Party Movement, through which we have registered over 15 million new voters in the last 2 1/2 years Nationwide. Over 80% of those were registered as Independent. My local group(s) had surpassed the 300,000 voter registration mark in January, virtually all of which were registered as Independents. We are approaching 500,000 to date. We are shooting for 1 million by Election Day. Safe to say they won't be Obama voters in November.

How many have you registered?

I'm not an endorser, period.

Not voting for Obama? WAINS?

Ron Paul appeals to me, but I might as well vote for a cabbage.

Are you thrilled by Mit "He was for it before he was against it" Romney?
.....
"How many have you registered?"
None. I don't do drugs, howl at the moon or dabble where the sun don't shine (politics). I am a registered 🈸♉🐠🐚📡🏭🉐♊ offender, however.
With all of your registration numbers, will Obama go down. Damned if I know, but I'm guessing not.

Mitt Romney is trying to convince the American people that he does not support a federal individual health care mandate—even though an individual mandate was a fundamental component of his own Massachusetts health care law. That 2006 law was one of the models for the Affordable Care Act, the law President Obama signed two years ago to bring more people into the health care system and end insurance companies’ discriminatory practices.

But Romney insists that he has “opposed the idea of a federal mandate from the beginning” and that “the last thing” he’d ever do would be “to take what we had done for one state and impose it on the entire nation.”

Mitt Romney is trying to convince the American people that he does not support a federal individual health care mandate—even though an individual mandate was a fundamental component of his own Massachusetts health care law. That 2006 law was one of the models for the Affordable Care Act, the law President Obama signed two years ago to bring more people into the health care system and end insurance companies’ discriminatory practices.

But Romney insists that he has “opposed the idea of a federal mandate from the beginning” and that “the last thing” he’d ever do would be “to take what we had done for one state and impose it on the entire nation.”

Now how damn bonkers is that Romney? Bring back Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In as he is an ideal participant. So it is okay in his State but transpose that to principled wrong anywhere else as it would look like imposing nationally. Couldn't the Republicans who are so vociferous about anything against government involvement find that a bit curious?

I still cannot get my head round this rather pointless thing you have over there where you have to register which politcal persuasion you are to vote?? Is this correct because an old girlfriend of mine in California has said to me this is the case.

How surprising: rjhowie doesn't understand anything about a federal system… (If it's any consolation to America's committed Libs, Obama too opposed the federal individual mandate… But Mr. "My word is my bondage baggage" Obama appeals to some, still.)

Oh, OakdaleFTL, don't you lump me in with the mass numbers of the American citizenry who seem to know little not only about the outside world but also what is going inside their own. Since forever there have been frictions between the Federal and States and we folk outside see more than you think with such a myopic political vision.

Every one of your Presidents comes with the same damn nonsense at the start of their wonderful term. A neew vision - a new America - instilled by the Founding Fathers, blah, blah. And each time the brained get all excited and get a flag waving hysteria of the new dawn. So many new dawns that keep the same faulty and corrupt system of patronage and corporate "proft first" lot deciding what you can have. The elections are a joke and why there are things like the OWS people and a growing band of the disillusioned young (and not so young). Obama has been no different. Whether it is the concentration camp on stolen Cuban land (so much for the rights issue, eh?) - media or electronic increasing control, stifling traditional rights for "security". Apart from the sensibles in the population there is a long childishness over there and simple folling going on. So it doesn't mater one jot who is in the White House at the end of the day as they just continue much in the same vein as the one before - you can se that with Bush junior and Obama who, if you excuse the pun, proclaimed he would be whiter and white.

Federal system? It's all superficial as the 1% run the place and profit the faith and elections are a sop to keep the bairns hapy.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Oh, OakdaleFTL, don't you lump me in with the mass numbers of the American citizenry […]

I'm not lumping you in with anyone, RJ: Your a lump all by yourself!
There are supposed to be frictions between the states and the federal government… I don't expect you to appreciate it. (Understanding is a different matter; but –considering the effort it must have cost you to locate and use so much punctuation in one post– you must have been plum tuckered out! ) BTW: Mitt's win in Texas gives him enough delegates for a first ballot nomination. So, that's over…

I need to get a quick run of what is going on so far.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I still cannot get my head round this rather pointless thing you have over there where you have to register which politcal persuasion you are to vote?? Is this correct because an old girlfriend of mine in California has said to me this is the case.

She's wrong. To vote in a party's primary, one has to be a member of the party. That prevents folks in other parties from skewing the outcome, and it doesnt apply to a general election. Bring your, by now, very old girlfriend up to date.

Originally posted by ggg-bro:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I still cannot get my head round this rather pointless thing you have over there where you have to register which politcal persuasion you are to vote?? Is this correct because an old girlfriend of mine in California has said to me this is the case.

She's wrong. To vote in a party's primary, one has to be a member of the party. That prevents folks in other parties from skewing the outcome, and it doesnt apply to a general election. Bring your, by now, very old girlfriend up to date.

I think what confuses him is the way primaries are treated like general elections ( and he's hardly the only one ). In Germany ( and I suspect it's similar enough in Britain ) every party has its own way to determine which candidates to run, select people for offices and whatnot, it's their own business and not a public affair. If you want to take part in party business you become a member. Also, party membership is between you and the party, you register with the party and nobody else. Your party membership or 'affiliation' is none of the election commission's business and since they don't run anything like the primaries over there they have no excuse for asking, if they ask anyway you tell them to bugger the hell off and then file a complaint with their superiors.

Originally posted by Macallan:

.....Your party membership or 'affiliation' is none of the election commission's business and since they don't run anything like the primaries over there they have no excuse for asking, if they ask anyway you tell them to bugger the hell off and then file a complaint with their superiors.

Without getting into further detailed explaniations, I'll make it short & sweet.

The elected officials here in the USA are all public employees.

They don't rule.

They don't even govern without the consent of the People, so being they are prospective employees of the People, the people are involved from day one, from party selection all the way through the process until they are hired by the People in a general election.

The process is crafted for including the People in all the processes, as opposed to excluding the People, for different than what you've explained, it is OUR business--A thru Z. Party affiliation is not manditory, but as explained earlier, if you intend on selecting an employee in a Primary, you must be registered in a political party ( there are some primaries where all people can vote for candidates regardless of party affiliations).

In other news, Romney's most recent ad mentions that he is running for the Presidency of the United States of Amercia.

How did I miss the founding of Amercia?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

In other news, Romney's most recent ad mentions that he is running for the Presidency of the United States of Amercia.

How did I miss the founding of Amercia?

Obviously a typo, I don't think you've been around in 527CE
( whatever gave him the idea he'd do better in good old England? )

so, it's Romney and obama? well, we're boned.

That's getting somewhere Macallan. Our parties don't make the same showy bits as over the pond so it does give the impression of something else altogether. She told me you had to register your political preference and according to what you say this is not the case. That was rather a puzzle as here it is treated as no-one's business what your inclination is. I did think it rather odd that you would have to register and tell what your support was before being allowed to vote in the actual general election!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

That's getting somewhere Macallan. Our parties don't make the same showy bits as over the pond so it does give the impression of something else altogether. She told me you had to register your political preference and according to what you say this is not the case. That was rather a puzzle as here it is treated as no-one's business what your inclination is. I did think it rather odd that you would have to register and tell what your support was before being allowed to vote in the actual general election!

A democracy that wished to survive would bar you from voting, wouldn't it? But no: You would argue that the very stupid and ignorant have just as much "right" to vote as your "regular" Scotsman!
(That esplains how you can be an advocate of "democracy": That constituency gets your vote, and you feel encouraged!)

RJ. your knowledge of American civics is –unfortunately– close to what we teach grammar schoolers…and have done, for way too long.

I'd like to send all those who can't see the BS over to the benighted isle of Scotland, where like-minded people can –well, do whatever it is they do. (Feel free to let the rest of the world know, if you'all do anything interesting — besides haggis. )

Originally posted by rjhowie:

That's getting somewhere Macallan. Our parties don't make the same showy bits as over the pond so it does give the impression of something else altogether. She told me you had to register your political preference and according to what you say this is not the case. That was rather a puzzle as here it is treated as no-one's business what your inclination is. I did think it rather odd that you would have to register and tell what your support was before being allowed to vote in the actual general election!

Supposedly you give your party affiliation only in order to vote in that party's primaries. If you don't want to do that you state it as independent and that's the end of it. Of course there's a big, fat & obvious problem with all this, but since both big parties profit from it there's no chance in hell it will change any time soon.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Supposedly you give your party affiliation only in order to vote in that party's primaries. If you don't want to do that you state it as independent and that's the end of it. Of course there's a big, fat & obvious problem with all this, but since both big parties profit from it there's no chance in hell it will change any time soon.

Well, if the slow, but steady surge in Independent Voter registrations -- away from the traditional two party either/or registrations -- continues I predict that "business as usual" in today's two party system will eventually become a thing of the past....in time it's bones will grace the halls of the American Museum of Natural History.

Of course there are a plethora of other conventions that need "adjustment" too, & many are being addressed at the local levels of politics, which in the end will directly affect the National political structure.

You're right, this kind of change or transposition won't happen over night, but Rome wasn't built in a day, & neither was our American Political System.

The more independents there are the better. Maybe one day the big carve-up by the two big buck parties will, well get broken. However not in my lifetime or any present young person.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The more independents there are the better. Maybe one day the big carve-up by the two big buck parties will, well get broken. However not in my lifetime or any present young person.

That actually happened a few times. Always ended up with another, not all that different, two-big-parties-and-a-bunch-of-irrelevant-ones system. Not surprising since the system itself didn't change, just a player got replaced.

Sad and depressing for many.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Sad and depressing for many.

Including the slaves that were freed and the "inconvenient" who weren't sterilized? How about the eugenicists who had to fade into the woodwork, politically speaking, until the Holocaust was forgotten?

Slaves freed as if that was the end of the matter. Your jolly con-man good ole Abe Linccoln was happy to accept slavery wasn't he just to keep some States in the club? He also made it clear they wouldn't get a vote or get too much into the "democvratic" system. Small wonder some blacks ffught with the Confederacy! Even when they did get into the Union Army no boots or guns and their commander had a Hell of job getting them after a long struggle. And what was the aftermath? They were treated not a kick in the backside of being a slave the way they were subsequently treated eh? Even in WW2 your white soldiers wouldn't serve with blacks and this discrimiation was still evident in the 1960's in the Forces. When they came here during WW2 US soldiers were a bit put out to see local girls here dancing and chatting to black soldiers. There were even places in the 1960's were getting a vote was refused.

Maybe someone wil be able to say from the Republican camp what the actual benefits will be of that Mormon clown being in the White House. What will he do to reduce the vast numbers on food stamps the military around the world the homeless and starving the tens of millions who cannot go to docs and so on. It would he helpful it an arguer from the anti-Obama matter would give the alternative. I am not too fazed as I prefer being in a democracy but come on give the lowdown.

I think we don't give this immigrant enough smart credit. I mean Obama did deceive the American People and are still alive.

Alive but starving, homeless, workless, depend on Coummnist money to stay afloat and conned by the corporates. Some living, eh?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Alive but starving, homeless, workless, depend on Coummnist money to stay afloat and conned by the corporates. Some living, eh?

i meant the "Prez" is still alive.

Ha, ha, I have to agree with that clarification.

Watch the GOP 2012 National Presidential Convention LIVE

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Even in WW2 your white soldiers wouldn't serve with blacks and this discrimiation was still evident in the 1960's in the Forces. When they came here during WW2 US soldiers were a bit put out to see local girls here dancing and chatting to black soldiers. There were even places in the 1960's were getting a vote was refused.

I was in the US Navy in '55 and served with Black sailors. And one had no option to serve or not serve. Obviously, you were never in the military.

Odd, this race/ethnicity business. For all of our backward ways, we have a Black president. Now I'm looking forward to seeing the first Pakistani Prime Minister. At 75 I may not live that long, though.

Cameron is white, isn't he?

Elsewhere,

Is Britain a racist nation? One in three Brits 'admits to being racist', according to poll
* Third admitted making comments or being involved in discussions which could be considered racist
* Almost 40 per cent confessed to using the phrase ‘I’m not a racist, but...' when discussing race issues

Anti-racism group said the poll was 'disappointing'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151056/Is-Britain-racist-nation-One-Brits-admits-racist-according-poll.html#ixzz253lxZUDl

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I was in the US Navy in '55 and served with Black sailors. And one had no option to serve or not serve. Obviously, you were never in the military.

I'm pretty sure he's right that there were exclusively African-American platoons back in WW2. However, I believe integration started in the last couple of years of the war?

What purile would-be apologetic stuff there on race and US Forces from Jaybro. Especially when it had apartheid policies during WW2 when we were all fighting the racist regime in Germany! That was still much the case in South Vietnam on land amongst the legions of the greatest army in the world (sigh). And being a sailor, Jabro would no little about that one nor be involbved in it.A timely balance to his attempt at neutralising my non-military background. I may not have been in HM Forces but my family has a long military tradition (including military intelliegence) so a no-no there re the man from Michigan. Anyway a pointless distraction so back to the Presidential carnival over the pond.

The BBC Parliamentary Channel devoted hours to this laughble stuff from the Republican Party Convention. Why Iis beyond me because most of us here couldn't care a damn actually. But I decided to watch parts of it and what a groan that turned out to be. You Americans don't have Party Conferences it is a glorified Scout Jamboree and no long line of speakers from the brain dead crowds. Instead, time after time a ssuitably arranged speaker saying the same damn things only in slightly different ways. And true to form the children whooping, hollering, whistling, clapping. Sometimes the speaker would get to the end of of two sentences (often one) and more of the same from the daft crowds. Add to that the constant need to stand up so often it makes respecting a speaker a downright laugh. True to form out came the family stories and such with held breath, holding back the tears stuff. From time to time you could see the tears in listeners eyes on the greatness of America. The fount of democracy and the need for it to stomp the world keech.

Can I say at this point, that I accept that we have a selection of intelligent ex-Colonists on this Forum who one assumes are not of such a purile kindergarten mode. I have occasionally said there is a childish streak running through the American race and boy, oh boy did this show itself in this purile Convention nonsense. Small wonder the political system is a bit of a mess judging by these annual jokes. One has to feel for the intelligent American but for people in the real world beyond the borders it is so damn laughable, dreadful and full often tear-jerking, immature piffle. Of course the sturdy Minutemen of the Grand Old party (snigger) will come out with the standard "We don't care what the world thinks" prattle and therein lies the problem. You think you created democracy and freedom inspiration when your history shows something else!

Now I have to wonder what the Democratic one will be like. Maybe I should get a funny hat, get a hankie ready, grit my teeth and wear my heart on the sleeve. Nah, maybe not. There is an excellent public carnival in Strathclyde Country Park just a short, fast train ride from here. At least that doesn't mean to be a showground -it is a real one! Talk about a bunch of children playing politics. You learn nothing because of mawkish Myopia and the daft thinking that you cannot learn from anyone else. Once US politics grows up there may be a chance.

Have a nice day folks!