***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[futuremd]

STACEY DASH 
Epic 1,344 Word Rant 
About Election Depression

EXCLUSIVE

Stacey Dash  is really bummed out that Mitt Romney  is NOT the next President of These United States ... and we know she's bummed out because she sent us a 1,344 word essay about it. 

In her statement, Dash touches on sleeping, hanging chads, her baby, her DNA, Osama Bin Laden ... and she also refers to herself in the 3rd person.  

As we previously reported, Dash took a whole lotta heat for being one of the only black people in Hollywood to not support Barack Obama. 

But at the end of her paper, Dash does say, "I am hopeful that President Obama will lead us to becoming the great United States of America that thrives."

Stacey Dash everyone ... she was in "Clueless" once.http://
[h3] [/h3]



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/11/07/stace...-about-election-disappointment/#ixzz2BfooDDRh

The entire letter:

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

2013

The other day I woke up and watched my daughter sleep, so sound, so perfectly at peace. A 

thousand thoughts and memories flashed through my mind. I remember being a child of that 

age, with no concept of adulthood and the responsibilities we take on with maturity. Now I know 

the weight of those responsibilities, of being a parent, a working woman, and it frightened me.

As a single Mother my main concern is for providing for my children and myself. It is especially 

important to me that they have the opportunity to attend college. This is what I’ve worked so 

hard for. I have, like many other citizens of the United States, been worried and upset by the 

tremendous downturn in the economy, and the slow path to recovery.  

I freely admit that presidential politics was not something I had much time for before the 2000 

election. With Gore and Bush fighting out to the last hanging chad, it was an experience that 

made me turn even further away from politics.

Two wars and a recession later I became newly invested in presidential politics by Barack 

Obama. I voted for Obama in 2008. Yes, I was part of the overwhelming majority that swept 

President Obama into his historic election!

I hadn’t known anything about him until he earned the Democratic nomination. He’s brilliant, 

understated, ethical, a great husband and father. President Obama will always be remembered 

as one of the greatest leaders this United States of America has ever known.  

The fact is, our country gives us the right to vote for whomever we choose. Moreover, I am not a 

spokeswoman for all women, or for minorities, or for single mothers... I am only one vote. 

Together we all choose who will lead our country.

At the end of the day we are in this together. This is Our American Family. I do not want to be a 

part of the hateful voices insulting each other. I want to be a part of the voices that helps shape 

the future. Don’t you? Perhaps I publically endorsed Romney from a slightly naive place, 

thinking that I could speak my voice without being criticized in such racially charged and hateful 

tones.

People get it wrong.  My vote for Romney isn’t a vote against Obama. That’s not how full 

participants in the democratic process operate. We vote for candidates and we vote for 

issues.

Like most Americans I was insulted with the idea that Obama was only elected because he was 

black, that people of color wanted one of their own, regardless of what sort of leader he would 

make. The same idiots make the argument that white guilt is why so many Americans voted 

Obama into office in the first place. That rhetoric is what helps divide this great nation. I didn’t 

I hadn’t known anything about him until he earned the Democratic nomination. He’s brillian

 a great husband and father. President Obama will always be remembered 

as one of the greatest leaders this United States of America has ever known.  

The fact is, our country gives us the right to vote for whomever we choose. Moreover, I am not a 

man for all women, or for minorities, or for single mothers... I am only one vote. 

Together we all choose who will lead our country.

At the end of the day we are in this together. This is Our American Family. I do not want to be a 

voices insulting each other. I want to be a part of the voices that helps shape 

Obama. I voted for Obama in 2008. Yes, I was part of the overwhelming majority that swept 

President Obama into his historic election!

I hadn’t known anything about him until he earned the Democratic nomination. He’s brillian

understated, ethical, a great husband and father. President Obama will always be remembered 

as one of the greatest leaders this United States of America has ever known.  

The fact is, our country gives us the right to vote for 

man for all women, or for minorities, or for single mothers... I am only one vote. 

Together we all choose who will lead our country.

At the end of the day we are in this together. This is Our American Family. I do not want to be a 

voices insulting each other. I want to be a part of the voices that helps shape 

I hadn’t known anything about him until he earned the Democratic nomination. He’s brilliant, 

 a great husband and father. President Obama will always be remembered 

 we choose. Moreover, I am not a 

man for all women, or for minorities, or for single mothers... I am only one vote. 

At the end of the day we are in this together. This is Our American Family. I do not want to be a 

voices insulting each other. I want to be a part of the voices that helps shape vote for Clinton because he was white and neither did anyone else. The skin color of candidates 

needs to be the last thing discussed, if at all.

I’ve been fortunate enough in my career to have earned a considerable income. I am a fiscal 

conservative. I like the simplicity of the plan to lower taxes. I feel I’ve paid out a substantial 

amount over the 20 plus years I’ve been working. I’m also a woman. And as a single Mother

who happens to be half-Bajan and half-Mexican, I have concerns, which cover many topics and 

issues.  

I haven’t heard much from anyone (including the people heaping insults my way) about the 

great things Obama HAS done for our country, like repairing the infrastructure of our highways, 

bridges and train rails and creating a lot of jobs by this program. I am so grateful for what his 

administration has done with the Settlement Act of 2010, which took great bipartisan effort to 

close a painful chapter in American history. That alone sets me apart from some people in the 

Republican Party. But it cannot be overemphasized that this happened due to bipartisanship 

between both parties. Republicans and Democrats both made painful compromises and 

stayed up past their bedtime. They forced the democratic process to work and the will of the 

people was done! That’s what attracted me to Romney. He had this kind of bipartisan success 

as governor of MA.

I also don’t understand why more people aren’t acknowledging the good that has come about 

thanks to Romney’s Massachusetts medical coverage for all citizens. In addition, Romney’s 

business acumen is sterling. Our country needs a savvy business manager with the ability to 

work on both sides of the aisle. Paul Ryan is another brilliant mind with a viable plan for the 

economy of this country. They’ve injected so much energy into the race. We need that ambition 

and focus to get our country back on its feet.

That said, I haven’t heard any conservatives but Colin Powell giving sufficient credit to Obama 

for the unprecedented action it took to take out Osama BIn Laden. If anyone can be blamed for 

the free-fall of our economy, it is this coward Bin Laden and his psychopathic henchmen.

I voted for the Romney ticket because I was inspired by their promises of working tirelessly to 

create a strong economy as their first objective. I have other issues that are close to my heart 

like equality, and women’s rights, and the benefits of strong public schools. I realize on these 

issues I’m entirely progressive. There are plenty of moderate Republicans who feel exactly the 

way I do on these issues. I don’t think we have to trade one for the other. The main objective of 

our nation must be repairing the economy. All our social concerns must come after this. Without 

a stable economy our great nation falls.

My support for Romney came with acknowledgements of the work that they have done, but also 

for the work they will do in the future. I hold each of these men to the highest standards.

I also don’t understand why more people aren’t acknowledging the good that has come ab

thanks to Romney’s Massachusetts medical coverage for all citizens. In addition, Romney’s 

business acumen is sterling. Our country needs a savvy business manager with the ability to 

work on both sides of the aisle. Paul Ryan is another brilliant mind with a viable plan for the 

economy of this country. They’ve injected so much energy into the race. We need that ambition 

and focus to get our country back on its feet.

That said, I haven’t heard any conservatives but Colin Powell giving sufficient credit t

for the unprecedented action it took to take out Osama BIn Laden. If anyone can be blamed for 

 of our economy, it is this coward Bin Laden and his psychopathic henchmen.

as governor of MA.

I also don’t understand why more people aren’t acknowledging the good that has come ab

thanks to Romney’s Massachusetts medical coverage for all citizens. In addition, Romney’s 

business acumen is sterling. Our country needs a savvy business manager with the ability to 

work on both sides of the aisle. Paul Ryan is another brilliant mind w

economy of this country. They’ve injected so much energy into the race. We need that ambition 

and focus to get our country back on its feet.

That said, I haven’t heard any conservatives but Colin Powell giving sufficient credit t

for the unprecedented action it took to take out Osama BIn Laden. If anyone can be blamed for 

 of our economy, it is this coward Bin Laden and his psychopathic henchmen.

I also don’t understand why more people aren’t acknowledging the good that has come about 

thanks to Romney’s Massachusetts medical coverage for all citizens. In addition, Romney’s 

business acumen is sterling. Our country needs a savvy business manager with the ability to 

ith a viable plan for the 

economy of this country. They’ve injected so much energy into the race. We need that ambition 

That said, I haven’t heard any conservatives but Colin Powell giving sufficient credit t

for the unprecedented action it took to take out Osama BIn Laden. If anyone can be blamed for 

 of our economy, it is this coward Bin Laden and his psychopathic henchmen.In the event that Romney wins the election, I expect them to elevate the platform of the GOP 

and become more inclusive, less exclusive and more inventive, especially as it comes to social 

issues including women’s health, gay rights, equal pay and immigration. Ok, this is a lot to hope 

for but if we insist that the politicians that represent us do their job, for the and by the people, 

anything and everything is possible. Presidents put together outstanding cabinets and this is 

where a greater perspective is realized.

In the event that Obama is re-elected I expect them to work a whole lot harder to bridge the 

divide between political parties, end the gridlock and get America back to work! Welfare reform 

is also in order. An elderly woman stands in the same grocery line pinching pennies to buy a 

can of soup while a woman is buying marshmallow fluff with food stamps. As times have 

changed, welfare policy needs to keep stride, just like every other issue.

Ultimately I know that what Stacey Dash thinks about who will be the next president of the 

United States isn’t that important in the scheme of things- but I feel a desperation for the country. 

The fact is, that when the two parties are not working together, it makes things worse!  Bring me 

a leader from either party that can get this unstuck. Non-partisanship is what will get Americans 

back to work and the homeless back on their feet. Whoever is the next president must break 

gridlock and do the will of the people. Stop pandering to partisan politics while our great nation 

flounders.

Ten Hours Later:

President Obama has been re -elected. I congratulate him. No he was not my choice, but he 

was the choice of the majority of our country. I do respect and appreciate that the country came 

together to make a choice. So for that I applaud Americans. 

Although I am disappointed that Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan did not win. I am 

hopeful that President Obama will lead us to becoming the great UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA that thrives. 

elected. I congratulate him. No he was not my choice, but he 

was the choice of the majority of our country. I do respect and apprec

together to make a choice. So for that I applaud Americans. 

Although I am disappointed that Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan did not win. I am 

hopeful that President Obama will lead us to becoming the great UNITED STATES OF 

gridlock and do the will of the people. Stop pandering to partisan politics while our great nation 

flounders.

 

[a baboon cow]

Stacey Dash gets a pass cuz shes hot. Her ignorance will be ignored.

 

[futuremd]

Stacey Dash gets a pass cuz shes hot. Her ignorance will be ignored.

Possibly one of the GOAT video girls thanks to Kanyeezus. 

 

[ninjahood]

Da rican spigot continues to water Florida, Cubans arent growing NEARLY at da same rate.

Da changing of da guard is loomin as da cuban population ages, which was my point. Da

Idiots who like to parse my comments can continue to suck on my platano

Ninjahood, give me numbers. Give me FACTS. Cousin sosa and horford told you that the puerto ricans outnumber the Cubans in voting power?

What part of ricans are starting to RAMP UP their population #s faster then cubans and are going to be

Outnumbered soon dont you understand? Google is a tab away..do ur own ******g HW, i dont have to spam

Threads with text walls from articles that i already read just to prove a point.

 

[fantastic4our]

No one wants to read text from Stacey Dash. Take more pics ma.

 

[futuremd]

Da rican spigot continues to water Florida, Cubans arent growing NEARLY at da same rate.

Da changing of da guard is loomin as da cuban population ages, which was my point. Da

Idiots who like to parse my comments can continue to suck on my platano

Ninjahood, give me numbers. Give me FACTS. Cousin sosa and horford told you that the puerto ricans outnumber the Cubans in voting power?

What part of ricans are starting to RAMP UP their population #s faster then cubans and are going to be

Outnumbered soon dont you understand? Google is a tab away..do ur own ******g HW, i dont have to spam

Threads with text walls from articles that i already read just to prove a point.

Who cares what their population outlook is? We're talking about present impact.

 

[a baboon cow]

What part of ricans are starting to RAMP UP their population #s faster then cubans and are going to be
Outnumbered soon dont you understand? Google is a tab away..do ur own ******g HW, i dont have to spam
Threads with text walls from articles that i already read just to prove a point.

Your not proving anything, no way will puerto ricans out # cubans. Especially with Cuban becoming more "liberal", even MORE cubans will be in America within the next 10 years. Face it Ninja, it will never happen. How about you Google a comparison of the population of voting cubans and the migrating puerto ricans. You'll have your proof there sport.

NOW if you wanna talk about the MEXICAN voting power, we will probably agree that with better immigration rules, within the next 15 years, the MEXICAN voting power will out number any other minority.

 

[futuremd]

What part of ricans are starting to RAMP UP their population #s faster then cubans and are going to be
Outnumbered soon dont you understand? Google is a tab away..do ur own ******g HW, i dont have to spam
Threads with text walls from articles that i already read just to prove a point.

Your not proving anything, no way will puerto ricans out # cubans. Especially with Cuban becoming more "liberal", even MORE cubans will be in America within the next 10 years. Face it Ninja, it will never happen. How about you Google a comparison of the population of voting cubans and the migrating puerto ricans. You'll have your proof there sport.

NOW if you wanna talk about the MEXICAN voting power, we will probably agree that with better immigration rules, within the next 15 years, the MEXICAN voting power will out number any other minority.

Hit him with the:

 

[ninjahood]

Da rican spigot continues to water Florida, Cubans arent growing NEARLY at da same rate.


Da changing of da guard is loomin as da cuban population ages, which was my point. Da


Idiots who like to parse my comments can continue to suck on my platano

Ninjahood, give me numbers. Give me FACTS. Cousin sosa and horford told you that the puerto ricans outnumber the Cubans in voting power?

What part of ricans are starting to RAMP UP their population #s faster then cubans and are going to be


Outnumbered soon dont you understand? Google is a tab away..do ur own ******g HW, i dont have to spam


Threads with text walls from articles that i already read just to prove a point.

Who cares what their population outlook is? We're talking about present impact.

I care cuz that was MY point... im not TALKING bout present day cubans vs Present day ricans

OTHER then da fact that TODAY'S numbers indicate TOMORROW'S impact.

Fall back.

 

[ninjahood]

What part of ricans are starting to RAMP UP their population #s faster then cubans and are going to be

Outnumbered soon dont you understand? Google is a tab away..do ur own ******g HW, i dont have to spam

Threads with text walls from articles that i already read just to prove a point.

Your not proving anything, no way will puerto ricans out # cubans. Especially with Cuban becoming more "liberal", even MORE cubans will be in America within the next 10 years. Face it Ninja, it will never happen. How about you Google a comparison of the population of voting cubans and the migrating puerto ricans. You'll have your proof there sport.



NOW if you wanna talk about the MEXICAN voting power, we will probably agree that with better immigration rules, within the next 15 years, the MEXICAN voting power will out number any other minority.

Lol comparing a island where da citizens are basically trapped is gonna

Compete with a island where da citizens can flow freely in da US cuz their a common wealth

 

[david bowman]

Obama did even better with Asians than he did with Latinos. I wonder how many years it takes the republicans to realize that one.

 

[a baboon cow]

Lol comparing a island where da citizens are basically trapped is gonna
Compete with a island where da citizens can flow freely in da US cuz their a common wealth

You must not know whats going on in Cuba......

 

[ccastro02]

Obama did even better with Asians than he did with Latinos. I wonder how many years it takes the republicans to realize that one.

I thought about that as well when i saw the charts. Although i feel their vote is just as important as the next group, I think the reason republicans are more concerned with the latino vote as opposed to any other group is because of two reasons. Now don't quote me on this, I'm pulling "a ninjahood" and making this stuff up. Feel free to correct me though:

1) i think it may be do the fact that economically, socially, and religiously, Latino's are very conservative. The bigotry and the animosity towards Hispanics in the republican party is what is preventing them from voting republican.

2) Latino population is astronomically much larger than the asian population in America.

EDIT:

3) Another reason may be because asians primarily live in the coastal u.s states, which generally vote democrat. Though the same applies to latino's, a huge chunk of latinos also live more in land, within swing states.

 

[ninjahood]

Ricans in a common wealth >>>>

Cuba cant compete, ricans got it TOO easy to get in da US

And just swell up orlando & da rest of FL.

 

[futuremd]

[h1]What Obama’s Re-Election Means for US Counter-Terrorism Strategy[/h1]
by Jack Murphy  · November 7, 2012 · Posted In: SOF News

Since 9/11 we have seen a revolution in how the entire US defense structure approaches and deals with the issue of terrorism. While the Clinton administration introduced some legislation that would pave the way for “targeted” killings in instances where there was an Executive Finding, the Clinton administration took a limp-wristed approach to intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism for the bulk for the 1990s, including missed opportunities to kill Al Qaeda head honcho, Osama Bin Laden.

The post-9/11 Bush Administration not only swung US Special Operations forces  into action, along with Para-Military and Clandestine Services, but also pushed hard for an expansion of these capabilities. Then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld played a large role in expanding the Special Forces Regiment and personally visited the Delta Force compound on Ft. Bragg to get a better understanding of how counter-terrorist forces operate.

Obama stepped into the White House during a transition period where America was withdrawing from Iraq and attempting to hash out an exit strategy for Afghanistan. While timelines were debated, shifted to the right, and a number of phony withdrawals were staged for the media, the US military did pull out of Iraq and is currently working towards doing the same in Afghanistan. No doubt this action has increased support from both the Pentagon and the American public with the near total lose of credibility of US Counter-Insurgency strategy with the so-called “insider” or “green on blue” attack where our Afghan allies suddenly turn on and kill American soldiers.

In the face of this withdrawal, the War on Terror seems to be decreasing in over all troop deployments while simultaneously expanding in all directions with low-visibility operations in places like Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Mali, and Libya. Meanwhile, other long standing operations have continued in places like Colombia which have been largely ignored by a media, and perhaps a Pentagon, that has a fixation on the Middle East.

With SEAL Team Six  eliminating Osama Bin Laden during Obama’s watch, the Special Operations community has received unprecedented popularity in the public arena. Reportedly, the Obama Administration has delegated responsibility for counter-terrorist operations to JSOC and his National Security Council, leaving them more or less to their own devices.


SEAL Team Six. Probably not hurting for work during Obama’s second term.

This can be good or bad depending on your perspective. While many will applaud taking the training wheels off our Special Operations units and letting them do what they do best, we sometimes see *****s in the armor when things go wrong. One well publicized incident is the debacle in Benghazi, Libya.

Another, less publicized incident occurred when a van with two JSOC operators and one Civil Affairs Officer went over the side of a bridge in Mali. Sources indicate that they would have been transporting local nationals to a safehouse on the opposite side of the river that was used for clandestine operations.

The question on the minds of many of our readers will be what the re-election of President Obama means for US counter-terrorism programs, units, and operations. Historically there is a feeling that the military benefits during a Republican administration but is defunded and ignored during a Democratic administration.

During the Clinton administration, even Special Forces soldiers did not have the funding for bullets and explosives to train with in some cases so this notion has some truth to it. However, this did not occur when Obama first took office. It seems likely that this was not because Obama favored the military in any particular way but simply that a robust counter-terrorist capability was in the best interests of the nation and so following realpolitik, in the best interests of Obama’s Presidency as well.

Another way to look at this topic is to see that DOD and counter-terrorism in general had simply taken on a life of its own, sprawling across dozens of agencies and absorbing billions of dollars. You have to ask the question of whether or not you could even turn off such a strategy if you wanted to.

When President’s are re-elected, especially by what appears to be a landslide in this case, it is popular to claim that the President has received a mandate, a total justification of past policies. Another common belief when an incumbent is re-elected is the idea that he now has “nothing to lose” and will make hardcore political decisions which project his personal ideology. This may be the case in domestic politics, but this effect is much less relevant in the context of Counter-Terrorism in the opinion of this author.

There will be no significant changes to America’s approach to terrorism, and Special Operations, because the on the ground realities all around the world have not significantly deviated with the re-election of Obama. The desert is still the desert and the jungle is still the jungle, no the earth has not moved. Geography is the same, foreign governments have not changed their disposition towards America, a number of nations still maintain nuclear deterrents. Political energies and centers of gravity continue to evolve independently of President Obama. The status quo remains and the Executive Branch will continue to call on America’s Special Operations and Para-Military services to battle terrorism.



The real risk during Obama’s second term is mission creep, over delegation, and over tasking of Special Operations units.

Mission creep can occur in many ways, and in many places. This can involve taking a Counter-Terrorist mission and gradually expanding it into area significantly beyond anything have to do with terrorism. With billions of dollars to play with, it is easy for DOD to start overstepping its bounds and exceeding its mandate.

Over-delegation happens when the Obama White House seeks to kick the can (to use an Obama expression) down the road to other agencies or individuals in order to absolve the President from having to make difficult decisions. This happened during the Maersk Alabama hostage rescue for instance where the Obama White House stopped making decisions so they could not be held liable if the operation went wrong. It should be noted that SOFREP has no evidence at this time that this performance was repeated in Benghazi, despite it being widely reported in the media.

It appears that the bulk of Counter-Terrorist decisions are being turned over to Obama’s National Security Council, the ring leader of these operations being John Brennan. A quick bio from Wikipedia:

Chief counter terrorism advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama; officially his title is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, and Assistant to the President. His responsibilities include overseeing plans to protect the country from terrorism and respond to natural disasters, and he meets with the President daily. Previously, he advised Obama on foreign policy and intelligence issues during the 2008 presidential campaign and transition. Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for Director of the CIA  in the new Obama administration over concerns about his support for the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, also known as torture, by the CIA under President George W. Bush. Instead, Brennan was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor, a position which did not require Senate confirmation.

After leaving government service in 2005, Brennan became CEO of The Analysis Corporation, a security consulting business, and served as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an association of intelligence professionals. Brennan’s 25 years with the CIA included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst, as station chief in Saudi Arabia, and as director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

With Special Operations units having unprecedented levels of clout and credibility, it seems that Obama has handed the direction of counter-terrorist operations over to Brennan, effectively removing himself from much of the decision making process.

Again, some will welcome this decision. Why shouldn’t covert operations be handled by technicians as opposed to a President whose resume highlights include community organizing? On the flip side, over delegation of military actions of foreign soil spells dangerous repercussions for democracy in America for years to come.

Over-tasking of Special Operations units, and their over use around the globe, can not only potentially exhaust the operators themselves but lead to ill conceived missions and failures. This can happen when the President and his National Security Council have so much faith in JSOC and SOCOM that they see Special Operations Forces as a means to remedy every foreign policy challenge they face, as opposed to using diplomacy, or simply deciding that intervention is not in America’s best interest.


The Ranger Regiment may get a much deserved break from constant battalion deployments in the next four years.

At this time we are beginning to see mission creep in several areas, over delegation is a serious fault of this administration, and over tasking of Special Operations Forces may become a serious issue over the next four years. The operators on the ground will never, ever tell us that they are exhausted. That just is not in their nature. They will always go when their country calls on them. However, it would be disingenuous to believe that more than ten years have not taken their toll.

While conventional units, and some Special Operations units will get a much deserved break from the constant deployments, Special Mission Units such as Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, and several others will probably continue to be in extremely high demand. These are units that have already sacrificed much during the War on Terror.

Another factor in the next four years of counter-terrorism operations is austerity. Like it or not, austerity is coming to the Pentagon. The US economy is not out of the woods yet, and while it seems that the Pentagon and our civilian government will seek to maintain America’s Special Operations capabilities, it remains to be seen how, and if, budget cuts will effect capabilities and outcomes down the line.

During election season it is typical to see both the left and the right resort to the most extreme rhetoric in order to secure their position, such as threatening to move out of the country if their candidate is not elected, or decrying that if the opposition is elected that this will be the last election ever held in America.

The truth is somewhat more sublet.

It is the gradual effects that should concern Americans in regards to our defense posture. Also, America’s current obsession with Special Operations Forces, leading to a belief in super human capabilities may be what ultimately leads to their undoing. Lets hope that someone is able to yank on the reigns in the coming years.

Who could that be? General Mulholland as SOCOM commander? David Petraeus as President?

Time will tell.



Read more: http://sofrep.com/13425/what-does-o...-us-counter-terrorism-strategy/#ixzz2BfwwKvUB

 

[a baboon cow]

Ricans in a common wealth >>>>
Cuba cant compete, ricans got it TOO easy to get in da US
And just swell up orlando & da rest of FL.

So your stating that Puerto Ricans will out number cubans in Florida eventually?

 

[mr marcus]

ninjahood a funny dude...step outside of "da heightz" and actually see the country a little bit instead of that poverty you're surrounded by

and ninjahood are you trying to say puerto ricans are mostly conservatives? I honestly don't know...just asking.....

 

[ninjahood]

ninjahood a funny dude...step outside of "da heightz" and actually see the country a little bit instead of that poverty you're surrounded by

Gee i didnt know Manhattan was poverty stricken...

I see its payaso day on #NT

 

[a baboon cow]

Gee i didnt know Manhattan was poverty stricken...

I see its payaso day on #NT

Its getting better, but there sure are still a few crack/ghetto areas in the heights. I've always thought you were on government assistance(assuming you were in one of those aforementioned places)

Either way, your posts have all been so narrow minded.

 

[futuremd]

[h2]Eighty-Eight Percent of Romney Voters Were White[/h2][h1]The GOP candidate’s race-based, monochromatic campaign made him a loser.[/h1]
By Tom Scocca[color= rgb(102, 102, 102)]|Posted Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012, at 2:31 PM ET[/color]

Mitt Romney greets supporters as he concedes the presidency on Tuesday, in Boston, Mass.
Photograph by Don Emmert-Pool/Getty Images.

In the end, the racial bubble of Mitt Romney's campaign  was a little too small. According to exit polls, he won 59 percent of the white vote, just short of his 60 percent target. But even a 60 percent showing with white voters wouldn't have won him the popular vote.

That’s because the GOP bubble remained as tight as ever: Only white people voted for Mitt
Romney.

Or not quite  only. Romney won 48.1 percent of the overall vote. White people who voted for Romney made up 42.5 percent of the overall vote. That works out to 88 percent of Romney voters being white.

Using the same method, we find that 2 percent of Romney's voters were black, 6 percent were Latino, 2 percent were Asian, and 2 percent had some other ethnic classification.

Obama's support was 56 percent white, 24 percent black, 14 percent Latino, 4 percent Asian, and 2 percent other.

The white-run political press remained in denial about Romney's narrowly race-based candidacy right up to the end, mistaking the anomalies inside the white bubble for the general political climate. Thus in the final week before the election, the New York Times  reported from Pennsylvania:

[T]here is a tangible sense—seen in Romney yard signs on the expansive lawns of homes in the well-heeled suburbs, and heard in the excited voices of Republican mothers who make phone calls to voters in their spare time—that the race is tilting toward Mr. Romney.

Obama won Pennsylvania by five points.

Politico, meanwhile, raised white identity politics to self-parody, in a now-notorious Nov. 4 piece by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen:

If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That’s what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W. Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000.

A broad mandate this is not.

(For what it's worth, the white vote for Obama ended up being five percentage points higher than the Hispanic vote for Bush in 2000.)

But white separatism was not enough to break up the actual Obama mandate. Obama's support was so broad that if white people had simply split 50-50, rather than favoring their ethnic candidate, the president would have won 58 percent of the popular vote.

This was more than Bill O'Reilly could bear last night. Given exit polls and early returns pointing to Romney's defeat, O'Reilly made the racist assumptions of the losing side explicit:

t's a changing country, the demographics are changing, it's not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it.

And, whereby, 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff.

You're going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama and women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?

The white establishment, undone by hordes of various-colored people who demand stuff. Even as he admitted the white bloc was too small to win, O'Reilly still saw the winning side as an undifferentiated counter-bloc, rather than a coalition of Americans.

Obama won the Latino vote, 71 to 27. He also won the Asian vote, 73 to 26. Those voters all look the same to the losers. That's why they're the losers.

 

[futuremd]

[h1]Why Do White People Think Mitt Romney Should Be President?[/h1][h2]Parsing the narrow, tribal appeal of the Republican nominee.[/h2][h3]By Tom Scocca[/h3]Updated Friday, Nov. 2, 2012, at 4:56 PM ET

I'm voting for Barack Obama on Election Day. This fact will appear on Slate's list of which candidates its writers are voting for, a list which will almost certainly look like the 2008 list, which is to say an almost unbroken string of "Obama." People will look at this list—Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama—and they will say, Look at the Slate  writers, inside their bubble.

And they will be wrong. There is a real, airtight bubble in this election, but it's not Obama's. As a middle-aged white man, in fact, I'm breaching it. White people—white men in particular—are for Mitt Romney. White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans. Without this narrow, tribal appeal, Romney's candidacy would simply not be viable. Most kinds of Americans see no reason to vote for him.

This fact is obfuscated because white people control the political media. So we get the Washington Post  reporting that the election is "more polarized along racial lines than any other contest since 1988":

Obama has a deficit of 23 percentage points, trailing Republican Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among whites, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll. That presents a significant hurdle for the president—and suggests that he will need to achieve even larger margins of victory among women and minorities, two important parts of the Democratic base, to win reelection.

That's not polarized. Polarization would mean that various races were mutually pulling apart, toward their favored candidates. "Minorities" is not a race (nor, you may have noticed, is "women"). Minorities and women are the people standing still, while white men run away from them.

What is it with these white men? What are they seeing that ordinary people don't see? What accounts for this ... secession of theirs, from the rest of America? John Sununu, Romney's campaign co-chair, responded to Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama  by saying, "I think that when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being president of the United States—I applaud Colin for standing with him."

Sununu was trying to be snide. But there he is, standing with Mitt Romney. Just like Donald Trump and Clint Eastwood  and Buzz Bissinger  and Meat Loaf—one aging white man after another. It's a study in identity politics.

White people don't like to believe that they practice identity politics. The defining part of being white in America is the assumption that, as a white person, you are a regular, individual human being. Other demographic groups set themselves apart, to pursue their distinctive identities and interests and agendas. Whiteness, to white people, is the American default.

Yet Mitt Romney's election strategy depends on the notion that the white vote is separate from the rest of the vote, and can be captured as such. Back in August, National Journal  ran a report on campaign math headlined "Obama Needs 80% of Minority Vote to Win 2012 Presidential Election":

Romney’s camp is focused intently on capturing at least 61 percent of white voters. That would provide him a slim national majority—so long as whites constitute at least 74 percent of the vote, as they did last time, and Obama doesn’t improve on his 80 percent showing with minorities.

Again, why are "minorities" treated as a bloc here? The story mentions no particular plan by the Obama campaign to capture the nonwhite vote. Instead, it discusses how the Romney forces hope to get a bigger share of white voters than John McCain did—by "stressing the increased federal debt" and attacking "Obama's record on spending and welfare."

Welfare, yes. Let's come back to "welfare." But first, how's the strategy been doing? A recent   ABC/Washington Post  poll  found Romney leading Obama 65-32 among white men and 53-44 among white women, giving him a 59 percent share of the white vote overall—"a new high," and closing in on that 60 percent target.

This has been the foundation of Republican presidential politics for more than four decades, since Richard Nixon courted and won the votes of Southerners who'd turned against the Democratic Party because of integration and civil rights. The Party of Lincoln became the party of Lincoln's assassins, leveraging white anger into a regional advantage and eventually a regional monopoly. It's all very basic and old news, but it's still considered rude to say so, even as Republican strategists talk about winning the white voters and only the white voters.

And so we have two elections going on. In one, President Obama is running for re-election after a difficult but largely competent first term, in which the multiple economic and foreign-policy disasters of four years ago have at least settled down into being ongoing economic and foreign-policy problems. A national health care reform bill got passed, and two reasonable justices were appointed to the Supreme Court. Presidents have done worse in their first terms. In my lifetime—which began under the first term of an outright thug and war criminal—I'm not sure any presidents have done better. (The senile demagogue? The craven panderer? The ex-CIA director?)

In the other election, the election scripted for white voters—honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the story is. Republican campaigns have been using dog-whistle signals for so long that they seem to have forgotten how to make sounds in normal human hearing range. Mitt Romney appears to be running on the message that first of all, Obama hasn't accomplished anything, and second of all, he's going to repeal all the bad things that Obama has accomplished. And then Romney himself, as a practical businessman, is going to ... something something, small business, something, restore America, growth and jobs, tax cuts, something. It's a negative campaign in the pictorial sense: a blank space where the objects would go. A white space, if you will.

The passion comes from what Romney is running against. For more than four years, without pause, Republicans have been campaigning and propagandizing against an imaginary Obama. At the most grotesque end of the fantasies, he is a foreign-born, anti-colonialist Muslim. In more reputable precincts, he is a power-mad socialist and a dumb affirmative-action baby, promoted all the way to the presidency by a race-crazed, condescending liberal elite. (As if the presidency of the Harvard Law Review  were awarded to anyone but the hungriest shark in the shark tank.) This is the position of the party's mandarins and reputable spinners—that Obama was foisted off on regular Americans against their will, despite all those votes last time around.

Hence the baiting of Obama, throughout his term, for supposedly being unable to speak without a teleprompter. Republicans predicted, over and over, that the president would be exposed and humiliated in face-to-face debate with an opponent (Newt Gingrich especially fantasized about being that foe). Eventually this led to Clint Eastwood haranguing the empty chair. And then in the first presidential debate, Obama was slack and ineffectual against a sharp Romney. See? It was true!

And then Obama shredded Romney in the second debate, and kept cuffing him around in the third. Now Romney was the deflating balloon, wild-eyed and babbling and licking his dry mouth in desperation. From which Peggy Noonan—whose proudest credential is having written the scripts for a Republican president who couldn't function without being fed his lines—concluded in the Wall Street Journal  that the only meaningful debate was the first one.

"Nothing echoes out like that debate," Noonan wrote, creating her own echoes. The president was "Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself." Full of himself. "[H]is failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him." ("He is not by any means a stupid man," she added.)

It's a strange, inverted world, the white-people's bubble, full of phantoms and rumors. Candidates are at the mercy of voter fraud, or the "urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine," according to the chairman of the Republican Party in Ohio’s Franklin County. (Voter turnout is a bad thing.) Jobs numbers are being fudged. Polls are being skewed. The liberal media are trying to hide how popular Mitt Romney is.

So it was that Romney, speaking to ultra-wealthy supporters  in what might have been the Whitest Room in America, ventured a joke about his father's birth in Mexico: "And had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this, but he was [audience laughs] unfortunately born of Americans living in Mexico." Note that "Americans" is a synonym for "whites," here. Note also that a room full of millionaires—a minority group that has dominated presidential politics in recent decades—believes that the true political advantage in this country belongs to children of Mexican immigrants.

If there's one thing white people have learned from decades of being targeted by campaigns, it's that someone, somewhere, is trying to cheat them. This is the idea behind Romney's 47 percent remarks in that appearance—America is divided between regular, productive folks and the people who are victimizing them.

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Here, Romney is speaking fluent White. In white people's political English, "personal responsibility" is the opposite of "handouts," "food stamps," and particularly "welfare," all of which are synonyms for "*******." This was Ronald Reagan's rallying cry, and it was the defining issue for traumatized post-Reagan white Democrats. Like George Wallace vowing not to be out-******ed again, the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Republic  and Bill Clinton made Ending Welfare as We Know It the policy centerpiece of the 1990s.

The actual policy never mattered. Now the Romney campaign is running ads in Ohio saying that Obama "gutted the work requirement for welfare" and "doubled the number of able-bodied adults without children on food stamps." In mixed company, Romney glosses the food-stamp lines as concern about the country's economic status, but that's not why "work requirement" and "able-bodied" are in there. It's the rusty old Confederate bugle, blown one more time.

At the end of the National Journal  piece about Romney's white-vote goals, a Republican strategist acknowledged the campaign was hanging its hopes at a shrinking target: "This is the last time anyone will try to do this." This is a demographic proposition rather than a moral one: The GOP will end its get-out-the-white-vote strategy whenever it stops working. Maybe, with luck, this will be the final sounding of that bugle.

 

[fantastic4our]

[h1]Why Do White People Think Mitt Romney Should Be President?[/h1]

[h2]Parsing the narrow, tribal appeal of the Republican nominee.[/h2]

[h3]By Tom Scocca[/h3]

dude I was just about to post this great read

 

[big meech]

Man these 4 years are gonna be rough.

The tension is so high right now u could cut it with a knife.

 

[acemaster193]

ninjahood a funny dude...step outside of "da heightz" and actually see the country a little bit instead of that poverty you're surrounded by


and ninjahood are you trying to say puerto ricans are mostly conservatives? I honestly don't know...just asking.....

Excuse me famz. The envy.

 

[laker4lifeman]

Rough if you live in those areas.