Presidential Candidates - 2008

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Mannix

This is a little off topic, but Canada and the US have a non-visa agreement system for travel. I can get into Canada with a driver's license; I don't even need a passport, let alone a visa. At least that's how it is if you're driving, no idea about the airports.

Actually, I'm not sure if this is just airports, or getting across the border in general, but I think they're changing it to needing a passport for getting across the border. Other identification won't do it.

B_real: Can't you be a dual citizen or something?

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

Actually, I'm not sure if this is just airports, or getting across the border in general, but I think they're changing it to needing a passport for getting across the border. Other identification won't do it.

B_real: Can't you be a dual citizen or something?

The US doesn't allow dual citizenships. Gaining citizenship in another country means forfeiting being an American. It's not automatic, but that's the rule. They'll do with you what they please from there.


@ Fifth: What I'm saying about Obama is that there's an expectation from him from a large part of the minority population. Diane Sawyer even did a segment on it. He hasn't had time to establish himself politically, giving people a wider berth of speculation which I believe will ultimately lead to disappointment, where Hillary is well-established and people already know what to expect from her.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

The US doesn't allow dual citizenships. Gaining citizenship in another country means forfeiting being an American. It's not automatic, but that's the rule. They'll do with you what they please from there.

Actually a friend of mine had dual Mexican and American citizenships, so it is possible.

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

@ Fifth: What I'm saying about Obama is that there's an expectation from him from a large part of the minority population. Diane Sawyer even did a segment on it. He hasn't had time to establish himself politically, giving people a wider berth of speculation which I believe will ultimately lead to disappointment, where Hillary is well-established and people already know what to expect from her.

That's probably a really good reason to vote for Obama and not Clinton; at least with Obama there's a chance, however small, of the unexpected happening.

[Fifthfiend]

@ Fifth: What I'm saying about Obama is that there's an expectation from him from a large part of the minority population. Diane Sawyer even did a segment on it. He hasn't had time to establish himself politically, giving people a wider berth of speculation which I believe will ultimately lead to disappointment, where Hillary is well-established and people already know what to expect from her.

Setting aside the merits of Diane Sawyer's declarations on what minorities expect from candidates, I still don't see how that's a reason why you, yourself, would choose to support or not support Obama.

I mean you're apparently making your decision on who you want to be president based on what a broad and unspecified group of people's aggregate opinion may be in the future, depending on whether a majority of that population eventually decides that the views said majority currently holds of the candidate are actually misperceptions, all apparently based on nothing the actual candidate has done or said.

I just don't get it, is all.

[Demetrius]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I mean you're apparently making your decision on who you want to be president based on what a broad and unspecified group of people's aggregate opinion may be in the future, depending on whether a majority of that population eventually decides that the views said majority currently holds of the candidate are actually misperceptions. All apparently based on nothing the actual candidate has done or said.

I just don't get it, is all.

Quoted for Muthaf***ing Truth. Vote on the policies, issues and historical stands of the candidate, not the popular opinions of the people. I feel the need to reference back to, maybe George Carlin, who said, "Think about the dumbest person you know, chances are half the population in dumber than them." Or something to that effect.

[P-Sleazy]

Originally Posted by Mannix

B Real - I'm pretty sure I could while not being a citizen, since that's pretty much what you're doing in the States now, right? I imagine the paper work would be roughly the same as what you had to do to be a working resident alien in the US.

No, I'm in the states on a Green Card.

Originally Posted by 42Petunia's

B_real: Can't you be a dual citizen or something?

Doesn't american citizenship automatically require you forfeit all other citizenships?

[Mannix]

I just saw this article. Apparently, Cheney and Obama are 8th cousins. Now, I think this is pretty irrelevant news in terms of what either man is capable of, etc. But it fascinates me as a student of history that our political leaders are becoming increasingly blood related; essentially we're developing an aristocracy, and not just in the non-literal cycle-of-wealth powerful upper class we've had for a while, either. Like, an old school European nobility. Aren't Bush and Kerry related somehow too? The thought of it makes me really depressed about voting.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Apparently, Cheney and Obama are 8th cousins. Now, I think this is pretty irrelevant news in terms of what either man is capable of, etc

You are correct in stating that the fact that they are related is irrelevant. Mrs. Cheney is also in agreement:
[QUOTE]an amazing American story that one ancestor ... could be responsible down the family line for lives that have taken such different and varied paths[/QUTOE]I don't think that it matters much at all that they're related.

But it fascinates me as a student of history that our political leaders are becoming increasingly blood related; essentially we're developing an aristocracy, and not just in the non-literal cycle-of-wealth powerful upper class we've had for a while, either. Like, an old school European nobility.

Aristocracy? The political leaders become increasingly blood related because they're the leaders. No one else dares to approach people in high places, so they generally have to take what they can get, which is pretty much only other affluent and powerful people, regardless of any emotional connection. Back in "old school" Europe, I imagine that the same thing happened for the same reasons. No one of a lesser stature could ever feel comfortable being a lover of nobility. Because of that, eventually, there is no one left but family.

But on a more important note, 8th cousins? That's too distant to matter in the first place. Why? Well, if you look at most people living in the same country, most of them are related to each other by that small amount. The term 8th cousins indicates that there are 8 generations between them and their common ancestor (1st cousins only having their parent's generation between them and the common ancestor). That means that the relation is meaningless. After about 4 generation removed the blood has (hopefully) been spread around a bit to be diluted enough that only minor family resemblance still occurs, and that's generally only for dominant traits. 8 generations removed indicates that their great, great, great, great, great grandfathers were not even the same. At that level, it's not worth pursuing, unless you have a fetish for that kind of thing. I found out that a girl I like is related to my family, but because we're not even 4th cousins, I don't care. There are, at the least, 5 generations between us, so we have too little of the same DNA to matter. The only reason anyone would even notice the relation is my family name is hard to miss. MacLeod.

My point here is that 8 generations off, you could be related to anyone in the country, or even the world. 8 generations off should not matter. Which is why I'll probably vote Obama EVEN THOUGH he is related to Cheney.

[Mannix]

[QUOTE=Elminster_Amaur]You are correct in stating that the fact that they are related is irrelevant. Mrs. Cheney is also in agreement:

an amazing American story that one ancestor ... could be responsible down the family line for lives that have taken such different and varied paths[/QUTOE]I don't think that it matters much at all that they're related.
Aristocracy? The political leaders become increasingly blood related because they're the leaders. No one else dares to approach people in high places, so they generally have to take what they can get, which is pretty much only other affluent and powerful people, regardless of any emotional connection. Back in "old school" Europe, I imagine that the same thing happened for the same reasons. No one of a lesser stature could ever feel comfortable being a lover of nobility. Because of that, eventually, there is no one left but family.

But on a more important note, 8th cousins? That's too distant to matter in the first place. Why? Well, if you look at most people living in the same country, most of them are related to each other by that small amount. The term 8th cousins indicates that there are 8 generations between them and their common ancestor (1st cousins only having their parent's generation between them and the common ancestor). That means that the relation is meaningless. After about 4 generation removed the blood has (hopefully) been spread around a bit to be diluted enough that only minor family resemblance still occurs, and that's generally only for dominant traits. 8 generations removed indicates that their great, great, great, great, great grandfathers were not even the same. At that level, it's not worth pursuing, unless you have a fetish for that kind of thing. I found out that a girl I like is related to my family, but because we're not even 4th cousins, I don't care. There are, at the least, 5 generations between us, so we have too little of the same DNA to matter. The only reason anyone would even notice the relation is my family name is hard to miss. MacLeod.

My point here is that 8 generations off, you could be related to anyone in the country, or even the world. 8 generations off should not matter. Which is why I'll probably vote Obama EVEN THOUGH he is related to Cheney.

I disagree with you as to the whys of eventual class inbreeding, but that doesn't really matter. As a nation formed from continual world-wide immigration, and supposedly possessing high social mobility, the fact that the rich and powerful are slowly turning into one family is significant. It's not something that happens over night, it took centuries for it to fully form in other parts of the world. The big point is that it's happening here to already noticeable effect.



Also, there can be only one.

[Elminster_Amaur]

As a nation formed from continual world-wide immigration, and supposedly possessing high social mobility, the fact that the rich and powerful are slowly turning into one family is significant. It's not something that happens over night, it took centuries for it to fully form in other parts of the world. The big point is that it's happening here to already noticeable effect.

But you're missing the point. How many of those immigrants and how many of those of the middle class and lower class truly have the mobility that you say? You have to also take into account that the rich and powerful have been breeding into rich and powerful because the poor don't understand. It does not take nearly as much work to control a household as it does to build and run a nation. Because of this, the poor and middle class would have to first bring themselves out of their respective classes, and become rich before those who are already rich could really appreciate them as equals, and vice-versa. The high social mobility only means that the process can happen faster. I'm not saying that a rich person and a poor person couldn't fall in love, I'm just saying that it's highly unlikely that they'd ever meet significantly in the first place to do so. The rich person would likely not notice the poor person, and the poor person would likely have too much venom toward the rich for them to truly know each other. That is why the rich will always marry into their own class, and the poor will do likewise. The only change in this cycle comes from the shifting of class of individuals or couples. The downfall of a few billionaires and their families, or the rising of new wealth is what keeps the process from accelerating into a true aristocracy. Because we are in a relatively free country, we will never see a true aristocracy form. I foresee that this is about as close as it will get.