Clinton or Obama? Who is your favorite?

[rc white]

I have searched in vain for any reference to the current candidates policies toward constitutional reform.
I suspect they pay at least lip service to the prevailing view held by Madison that sees the constitution as akin to that document write upon stone that Moses purportedly brought down from the mountain.
That that document being perfect in every way, the deity would be mightily displeased if even one word was altered, indeed the very suggestion of it being sacrilegious.
Notable amongst those that regarded this view with suspicion was Thomas Jefferson who advocated that a constitutional convention be held every two years in order to consider how it may need to be modified to cope with changing circumstances.
There in fact hasn't been one constitutional convention since the first one two hundred years ago, and even the most trenchant Madisonite must surely admit that there have been changes in circumstances since then that might warrant at least the discussion of major overhaul.

[isenhand]

It’s really irrelevant who wins. In today’s world, politician have to bow the whims of the people, regardless of who they are or what party they are from.

See:



Part 4 is the important part for today.

.ui

[Dr. Chris E Obinwa]

Originally Posted by isenhand

It’s really irrelevant who wins. In today’s world, politician have to bow the whims of the people, regardless of who they are or what party they are from.

See:



Part 4 is the important part for today.

.ui

Dear isenhand,

Who wins between Obama and Clinton is relevant in the scheme of events in America. I really do not want to go beyond this.

Dr. Chris E. Obinwa

[UKBullDog]

I hope that Obama wins. There is a great need for "change2 in the US.

I think the US has finally woken up to the fact that they are not the only ones on this planet.

I also suggest for people to read his biography. that will explain a lot and was a very enlightening reading.

My father is a black american but I do not want to live in the US as I had to as a teenager and it was the worst time of my life. UK is far better for blacks, for those willing to join in and be part of society.

[rc white]

If you have read Obamas biography you will know that he is from a background of privileged elitism, much like George Bush John Kerry etc. and has little real knowledge of the true black lifestyle and the true experience of being black in America, indeed Hilary Clinton from working class Chicago probably has more real appreciation of and empathy with it.
It is true that Obama was involved in ghetto politics and this gives him a measure of street cred, (it is very doubtful if his claims to be a Christian are true), but it must be said that it is a thin carefully applied veneer of it that has of late been cracked and lifted a bit to show the substance underneath as what you would expect, pure elitist Harvard law school graduate with no real understanding and indeed a disdain for whom are supposedly his constituents.
As I have observed before although the want for change is genuinely felt by the electorate there is no mechanism to instigate it in the American system and an outsider like Obama would almost certainly be rendered a lame duck almost as soon as he entered office, this would not have much to do with his pigmentation but a lot to do with the Washington setup.
That Obama would inevitably fail will of course be put down by some to racism again diverting attention from the real cause, that the presidency simply cannot bring about change of the magnitude and type that people want, entrenched sectional interests will see too that and something like constitutional reform to break that deadlock is not on the agenda.

[UKBullDog]

Well, if black and not educated cannot get into the white house and black and highly educated cannot get in either then there is no hope is there (for any ethnic type person)!?!

Just because the big conglomerates have bought themselves into the politics in the USA, UK, Europe and elsewhere on this planet there is no need to be pessimistic and say it could never change. It can and with people power it can be changed.

It is the mental state of the people that needs changing. We are "belly full" and comfortable. I wonder what would need to happen in the UK before people get their buts off the settee and start protesting in masses. At the same time we expect other countries to dispose of their dictators.

Yes, we voted for our leaders, but there is no real choice as the person on the ballot paper might not be the one I really want us leading. I also think that our leaders need to be more transparent and they are not. So they themselves behave like little dictators.

Of course Obama will have a really hard time when in office. Everything he says or does will be scrutinised and analysed down to the minutest detail. Also he has to watch out for the back stabbers and also for those proclaiming to be friends. Who needs enemies when you have friends ready to hang you. But he also needs to watch out for the white supremacist lobby as his life will be in danger the minute he becomes the main democratic candidate. Once he is in the White house he needs to watch his back. Otherwise he will follow Martin L. King and Malcolm X and all others who were assassinated.

We have had the others try and lead the world. Lets try another route with hope and change. Cause the world needs it. We cannot continue like we have now. Plus the world and the USA are ready for a serious change.

[Dr. Chris E Obinwa]

Hi Mr. UKBULLDOG,

Don't you think it is worthwhile to die for one's country as a brave man and be remembered perpetually than not? History has always had a place for such men. For instance, those that were eliminated because of what they stood for, have not been forgotten. I wish Obama - the U.S President in the making, God's protection, so that he could do what President Bush and the GOP could not do for America.

The World should be a more peaceful place devoid of wars ignited by big countries invading some countries because of their military mights. Since every nation looks up to America as a leader in global issues, any President who eventually emerges should endeavour to make America what it used to be in international affairs and also the person should be able to carry along the American people in all his policies and decisions.

Dr. Chris E. Obinwa

[Karl]

Hillary Clinton prepares to admit defeat with a final show of strength - Times Online

I suppose that by this point in time, the original question of this thread has essentially become redundant...with Clinton "endorsing" Obama, etc. etc.

But this by no means ends the discussion, it will simply need to shift a little now. The Sustainability Forum appears to not have many Americans in active membership - most seem to be from UK, other Europe, Asia, Australia and (Commonwealth) Africa. That aside, most of our US membership (with a few notable exceptions) on this board appears to have carefully avoided this thread, but based on our experiences (especially) over the past 8 years - the issue (given the disproportionate influence of that one country), will be - which of the remaining two is better from the perspective of global sustainability in all aspects: economic, socio-political, cultural, ecological, environmental, etc.

[rc white]

The point is that neither of those candidates are going to tackle the major issue of sustainability, that being that Americans really do not have a god given right to squander a disproportionate slice of world resources.

For most Americans to believe this it would take something of the magnitude of Jesus Christ himself walking up the Potomac to the White house, and sitting in the oval office declaring it, as to the utterances of some uppity nigger.......

The fact is that the Chinese and Indians want theirs, and are going to get it, and for this to happen Americans have to have less.

To get this through to a population that seems to have a genuine belief that what they have is given to them as their right by god is virtually impossible, any mention of such a thing is by definition sacrelige, and any politician doing so immediately illicites the shoot the messenger reaction, so in the interests of self preservation they don't, and of course most of them are convinced that God is on their side and the Lions share really is their God given right.

In the end thinking that Obama can by means of overblown rhetoric do anything meaningful is pining false hope upon him, and in reality he has little else but a rhetoric of change with no substance.
Let us not also forget that early in his campaign he was talking about going into North Pakistan to "kick ass", every body on the planet should shudder at the potential ramifications of this.

I hope that it was just a rhetorical device to tell people that they should vote for him because he is a real man with big hairy balls and Hilary isn't, unfortunately American presidents have a tendency to want to prove the magnitude of their cojones, and this would potentially unleash a catastrophe of "Rumsfeldian" proportions.
As they say remember you heard it here first folks.............
rcw

[Johnny Electriglide]

Obama has it for the Democrats and McAmnesty is just as bad on the RINO side. Ron Paul is still running, and if I can't write him in, I'll go for Chuck Baldwin with Alan Keyes as his running mate with the viable Constitution Party. Get the invaders out, secure the borders and get out of the middle east, along with starting to pay off the national debt by less spending, and more collection of legal fines by enforcement of Sec8USC1324-5.