2012 U.S. Presidential Election Thread

[Sir Purrcival]

Yes, Israel was allotted a sliver of land and then after the 1967 war, they kept additional territory including the West Bank. And what happened. Oh yes, the Israelis started building settlements. Not only was that a government sponsored process but there was also a fair bit of "unofficial" settlement building and a concerted effort to drive the Palestinians even farther into hardship. We aren't just talking about armed militant Palestinians, we are talking women and children, farmers, shop keepers and anyone else that happened to be in their way. Israel is about the size of Wales now.

As for living a better life? Highly problematic statement IMO. Israel is certainly a prosperous country but by a large margin, the Palestinians living there don't enjoy many of those benefits. They are workers, tradesmen and manual labourers who have little political say in the running of the country. Ask those who got separated from other parts of their families by the infamous wall just how well off they feel.

As for anti antisemitism. There is a lot of it but sometimes, I can' t help but wonder why such universal dislike? I will relate a true story that first got me questioning the whole Israel issue. A few years ago I was working at the house of a woman who I knew who happened to be Jewish. As it happened, I was working the same day as her young son was getting his training for his upcoming Bar Mitzvah. This is what I actually heard the Rabbi schooling this young man about the Holy Land. I can't remember the exact words but in effect, they went something like, "the Holy Land is ours by right. Promised to us and only us by God. All others are not entitled". Or something like that. The mother upon hearing this to her credit took the teacher to task but it was very enlightening. That was here in Vancouver, less than a decade ago. That kind of rigidness is every bit as much a problem as those that want to "wipe Israel of the face of the earth". After that episode, it wasn't so clear cut for me anymore about what the reals problems were over there. The Jews don't have a patent on religious hard liners and I don't like terrorism or killing or any of the violence that goes on over there. I just don't think it is as one sided at it sometimes appears to be. Every time a bulldozer razes a Palestinian home, it sets the stage for a whole new generation of Palestinian militants. I don't believe that they will likely ever have peace until both sides are willing to acknowledge the others right to be there. As I mentioned, I believe Netenyahu is one of the worst of the hard line leaders and this is his second go round. Says something about the tenor of the country. I would be much more content if moderates got more support from abroad and hard liners like Netenyahu got less. In other words, play nicer we will give you greater support. Much the same as what happens with other leaders.

In the end we don't have to agree about things but we should and do need to be civil about it. When the world learns how to do that, we will all be better off.

[South Pender]

Well, Sir Purrcival, as you suggest, we'll just have to agree to disagree about this. My perception of the effects of the Israelis "playing nice" with the Arabs, and Palestinians in particular, is that this would just be seen as weakness to be exploited by their enemies in the region. Nor would it, in my opinion, lessen one whit the raging antisemitism seen in the UN. My view of Netanyahu is that he is exactly the right man in Israel at this point in history with Iran closing in on acquisition of a nuke.

At the Camp David Summit in 2000, Ehud Barak, then Israeli PM, offered to play nice with the Palestinians, agreeing to give them just about everything they wanted, including the vast majority of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The Palestinian share of the West Bank was to expand to 92% in time. Yasser Arafat turned him down--demanding absolutely everything on their wish list. This attempt at arriving at a negotiated two-state solution thus fell apart. In my opinion, this was a good example of what "playing nice" with the Palestinians would yield.

My statement regarding the better quality of life enjoyed by the Arabs living in Israel was made with the comparison to the quality of life of those Palestinians living in Palestine. Surely, you wouldn't take issue with that. In other words, those Palestinians living in Israel live much much better than those Palestinians living in Palestine. In my experience, that's pretty well universally accepted.

[Sir Purrcival]

If you can show me the country of Palestine on the map, maybe I can agree.

This link has some information that you might find interesting. We may agree to disagree but I have enjoyed reading your perspective on the matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... order.html

[South Pender]

If you can show me the country of Palestine on the map, maybe I can agree.

Of course. What I meant is the land Palestinians hope to make into a state. Are they originally Jordanians? Would you accept the following? Those Arabs and, specifically Palestinians, living in Israel have a significantly higher quality of life than do those Arabs and Palestinians living in the West Bank. I suppose if we agree that there is no country of Palestine, then doesn't it follow that there are no Palestinians? If they call themselves Palestinians, at least they must think that there's a Palestine!

This link has some information that you might find interesting. We may agree to disagree but I have enjoyed reading your perspective on the matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... order.html

Very helpful. Thanks for providing that link.

Here's a thought. Prior to 1967, the Israelis were living within the "Green Line." Unsatisfied even with that tiny slice of land belonging to the Israelis, the Arabs attacked, hoping to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Israel defeated them. Now is it strictly fair that Israel should gain nothing from this defense of its very existence? Is it so unfair that they should acquire some of the West Bank if for no other reason than to have a bit of a buffer against future attacks on Israel? Isn't there something to "to the victor go the spoils"? The map in the video you provided shows just how precarious Israel is land-wise at that point at which the distance from their border to the Mediterranean Sea is a mere 9 miles. Israel needs buffers to mitigate the rocket attacks coming from Gaza and the West Bank. Its very existence would seem to depend on this. Israeli school children having to run for cover when, on a regular basis, the rockets come into southern Israel is an intolerable situation. Buffers against the same rockets coming from the East--the West Bank--don't seem to me to be unreasonable. To my mind, the Israeli expansion is very very different from Russia's attempt to expand into Georgia a couple of years ago, as just one example of unjustified expansion. The world should see the Israeli settlements in the West Bank for what they are: for the most part, accessing land necessary to the country's continued existence.

[Sir Purrcival]

You raise a valid question about spoils to the victors but it isn't always the case you get to keep what you won. Germany being one example. How about Japan, Iraq or Grenada, do those belong to the US? Look at the Commonwealth. What you see now are countries that at one time had been dominated by Britain which are now independent nations In many cases, countries like China which have continued to occupy Tibet as an example are not considered especially well as a result. The answer to the question is a qualified sometimes. I don't know how much of that material you looked at regarding the West Bank, can you see any real option for the creation of a Palestinian homeland given the actions of the Israeli's? I sure can't. We talked antisemitism a little and so on but when does it stop being about antisemitism and start being about immoral behaviour? I really don't have an axe to grind with Judaism but I do not favour the way the Israelis are handling this. To be truthful, I find some disturbing similarities between what is happening in Israel and what happened to the Indians on this continent. They have systematically been herding the Palestinians into smaller and smaller spaces, they take what they choose both officially and unofficially and restrict economic activity when suits them. They have rightly surmised that the more settlements and people there are in the disputed areas, the harder and less likely it is going to be to remove them. Many would openly fight their own government rather than be uprooted. Israel is not interested in a negotiated settlement and I seriously doubt that even if the government was, there is no way that they would be able control the various factions within the population. It would be civil war.

Maybe they see it as a necessary for continued existence, but it comes at the cost of the existence of others. Sort of reminds me of another period in history when attempts were made to do the same things to Jews. It was more brutal, time compressed, heinous in fact but a ghetto is a ghetto, restrictions on movement are restrictions, land and property seizures are still seizures. All these things have happened in modern day Israel and continue to happen. I know it isn't a simple issue and I can find lots to fault the Arabs in the region for including a misguided war in 1967. They aren't angels either but scales of injustice are a lot more balanced that some might think. If some sanity doesn't prevail sometime, I fear that it will eventually be the undoing of them all.

[South Pender]

You raise a valid question about spoils to the victors but it isn't always the case you get to keep what you won. Germany being one example. How about Japan, Iraq or Grenada, do those belong to the US?

Well the 56 current US military installations in Germany (and many more closed at various times many years after the end of WWII) can certainly be seen in this light, don't you think, as they were taken to add to the US's defenses against its new enemy post-WWII, the Soviet Union. And in Japan, there are currently about 80+ military installations still there, with more than 35,000 US troops, again "spoils of war," if you will, and America's eyes on its other big opponent, China, along with North Korea. Of course, for many years following 1945, the US basically ruled Japan, under General MacArthur's leadership. And the US certainly has a presence in Iraq, again to aid in its defense in the Middle East. None of these foreign-based facilities would, of course, have been possible had it not been for a war that the US won. The US, as far as I know, maintains some military presence in Grenada. In fact, everywhere the US has fought, it has retained military installations--the Middle East, the former Yugoslavian countries, the Far East, etc. These are the rewards for losing US lives and treasure in these conflicts. They are valued because they add to the US's defensive potential. Why shouldn't Israel have similarly benefited from having defended itself successfully by taking some land that would make future aggression less likely to succeed.

I don't know how much of that material you looked at regarding the West Bank, can you see any real option for the creation of a Palestinian homeland given the actions of the Israeli's? I sure can't.

Sure I can. How about using the Israeli fortifications installed to reduce the suicide attacks by Palestinians?

We talked antisemitism a little and so on but when does it stop being about antisemitism and start being about immoral behaviour?

Immoral behaviour? If it were immoral behaviour that was getting the world's knickers in a twist, why is that the rest of the world doesn't see the horrible rocket attacks on Israeli children as immoral and condemn the Palestinians too? Or Iran's pledge to wipe Israel off the map--a goal shared by Hamas in the Palestinian territories? Or the suicide bombings by Palestinian terrorists in Israeli cities. Just why is it that the murderous immorality of the Arabs and Palestinians doesn't invite the same censure. Well....it's largely antisemitism.

I really don't have an axe to grind with Judaism but I do not favour the way the Israelis are handling this. To be truthful, I find some disturbing similarities between what is happening in Israel and what happened to the Indians on this continent. They have systematically been herding the Palestinians into smaller and smaller spaces, they take what they choose both officially and unofficially and restrict economic activity when suits them. They have rightly surmised that the more settlements and people there are in the disputed areas, the harder and less likely it is going to be to remove them. Many would openly fight their own government rather than be uprooted. Israel is not interested in a negotiated settlement and I seriously doubt that even if the government was, there is no way that they would be able control the various factions within the population. It would be civil war.

Oh, I don't think so at all. First, the majority of Israelis actually favor negotiations and an eventual two-state solution. Second, I believe that the government does too. The stumbling block, in my opinion, is not Israeli recalcitrance, but rather the ultimate goal of all Arabs--the annihilation of the Jewish state in the Middle East. Remember that the Palestinians had their chance in 2000 at the Camp David Summit to reach a very favorable settlement and wouldn't take it, wanting everything or nothing. At the time, President Clinton correctly laid 100% of the blame on the Palestinian Authority.

Maybe they see it as a necessary for continued existence, but it comes at the cost of the existence of others. Sort of reminds me of another period in history when attempts were made to do the same things to Jews.

Sorry, I find this supposed equivalence odious in the extreme. Sir Purrcival, I think I'm going to sign off on this theme now. We very clearly see the Middle East issue completely differently. I don't think further discussion will be constructive.

[South Pender]

I get a sense the media is beginning to turn on the Democrats. They seem upset about being lied to about Libya, which I think is going to blow up as a major scandal before the election, and should be a major motif of next Romney/Obama debate. If Biden sh*ts the bed tonight, I can imagine they'll start circling like sharks.

Frankly, I think the media has blown this Libya attack way out of proportion. I think CNN really hit a new low last night when Anderson Cooper devoted about a quarter hour to an interview with the mother of one of the guys killed there (not the ambassador). In my opinion, the change of opinion about the cause of the attack is not State Department lying, but nothing more than the uncertainty that attends these things until the facts are all known and analyzed. At first, they said it was caused by the inflammatory video, but then found more evidence and changed their view of the cause to a simple (albeit deadly) terrorist attack. I don't find this that disturbing. This mother had met personally with Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and other top US officials. It's not that they didn't take her grief and questions seriously. And she gets up and claims she's been lied to. I can't see why this should be considered a scandal. At worst, the US consulate was insufficiently protected. Is this Obama's fault? Is it Hillary Clinton's fault? CNN's whipping up scandal sentiment is just the usual media trick of trying to make a big story--with more than enough outrage to go around--out of a small, albeit tragic, event. Just how was the media lied to? Everyone thought that it was the video at first. Later, after more facts were available, they changed their view of the the cause. I don't see scandal, but I guess we should never underestimate the media's ability to make, rather than report, the news.

I'll be glued to the VP debate tonight too. I think my expectations are just a little different from yours, but, hey, let them play the game!

[South Pender]

Frankly, I think the media has blown this Libya attack way out of proportion.

Really? You think a terrorist attack on a US consulate in the middle east where an ambassador and security personnel are murdered isn't a story?

You've misunderstood my point. Of course, a terrorist attack on a US consulate is a huge story. What I was referring to as being blown up is the subtext of lying to the American people. I simply don't buy your position that (a) the Administration lied or that (b) any of this can legitimately be laid at Obama's feet. The latter is a purrfect example of the Republicans politicizing the story for obvious political gain. Do you think that Obama is aware of all the details of security at foreign consulates? That's just not feasible, and to pretend that (a) he should have known about the lax security, and (b) he should have had all the information underlying the attack instantly is, in my opinion, just more nasty, unfounded political spin by the Republicans (and I realize that the Democrats do this too). Despite your protestations to the contrary, I don't believe for a minute that the Administration or anyone in it knew right away that this was a terrorist attack, but instead said that they believed it to be response to the video. And I sure can't agree with your assertion that "No thinking person thought this was about a video." We've seen Islamist violence before in response to this kind of thing (like the cartoon), and, of course, in Cairo around the same video. It is completely reasonable that the attack could have been in response to this video. Once it became clear that it wasn't, the Administration acknowledged this.

I guess I feel this way partly because I can see no advantage to Obama of having the cause the video as opposed to terrorism. What exactly does he gain by sticking to the video story (lying as you imply) when the terrorism explanation is correct? In both scenarios, the fact seems to be that the consulate was insufficiently secure.

As I've mentioned in other posts, this using any damn thing out there to gain political advantage--instead of presenting compelling policy alternatives--is a huge blight on the American political process. It's just "how can we smear this guy." It's despicable and pathetic. And it's not just one party doing it. As I mentioned in another post, in my opinion, the Democrats' representing of Romney's teenage antics as somehow providing a window into his present character is equally desperate and reprehensible, as though somehow the actions of what is basically a child seals once and for all his "character." Wordsworth may have written that "the child is father of the man," but I'm sure he didn't mean this!

[South Pender]

Post VP Debate Opinions. Overall, seen as a draw. Some polls give a slight edge to Ryan (e.g., CNN - 48/44), others to Biden (CBS - 50/31). If Biden had kept the smiles, smirks, and eye-rolling out of his performance, my guess is that he would have been seen generally as the winner. The outright lies and one-sided distortions were about equally-distributed according to the fact-checkers. See link below:

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/ ... yans-night

[South Pender]

Completely agree with you about the Bidenisms--laughing, smirking, etc. Really stupid, in my opinion, and, as you say, memorable.

[Toppy Vann]

Post VP Debate Opinions. Overall, seen as a draw. Some polls give a slight edge to Ryan (e.g., CNN - 48/44), others to Biden (CBS - 50/31). If Biden had kept the smiles, smirks, and eye-rolling out of his performance, my guess is that he would have been seen generally as the winner. The outright lies and one-sided distortions were about equally-distributed according to the fact-checkers. See link below:

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/ ... yans-night

Normally yes, style is more important on TV but the plan was for the Vice President of the United States to tell it like it is and show that Paul Ryan is blowing smoke on a lot of issues. It was exactly what they needed to rally their troops who were demoralized. This is not going to lose votes but in fact made Joe look Presidential!

He demonstrated by his laughter and cut ins that he IS the VP of the USA and he was there.

This debate will go down as one of the reasons he'd be a viable Democratic challenger for President in 2016 when Hilary Clinton again wants to run.

[South Pender]

Enjoyed tonight's 2nd Presidential Debate. Scoring seems to have Obama a little ahead (at least on CNN), but after drilling down to certain issues and topics, Romney got good debate-watchers' support, outpointing Obama on several important issues like "who would handle the economy better." On the other hand, I'm not sure what to make of CNN's "scientific poll," in which 33% were self-reported Republicans and 33% were Democrats (that was the breakdown in the debate-viewers sample), whereas, in the general population, there is about an 8% difference in favor of self-reported Democrats.

Although the debate was hard-hitting at times, I didn't see it as viciously personal ("they almost came to blows," according to one watcher) as many seemed to think. I think Candy Crowley's assessment was right on point: she didn't think there was personal dislike, but rather a strong sense of urgency on both sides.

We'll have to wait for the polls on the weekend or next week to know whether the overall dynamic of the race was affected by this debate. In my opinion, it might have slowed down Romney's recent surge, but I don't see it as a game-changer.