I don't buy that poll. I can count on one hand the number of American 9/11 conspiracy theorists I've met in my life, and I've spent a lot of time hanging around with the demographic that one would expect them to come from. Incidentally, do you believe 9/11 was an inside job??
Ah, I see, now you are also in a position to discount polls. What exactly don't you "buy" about that poll? All the methodology is described in the article and the links it contains. But hey, let's go by all the people you've met in your life...science be damned! You're like a bad parody of Stephen Colbert going with his gut feeling. And not that it's germane, but no, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. I don't think it helps that Bush and BushDaddy were especially close to the Saudis and might have helped lead to complacency on the part of our NSAs, but I certainly don't think said complacency was intentional.
For one thing, the question used in the poll is vaguely worded at best: Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them The second part of this statement could be taken to mean negligence (which I would agree with) just as easily as complicity.
Uh, no, that's not vague language at all. The second clause of the question implies implicit knowledge of the attacks beforehand. There is no way that would be taken to mean negligence. If they were trying to imply negligence, a separate question would have read something like "Could federal officials done more to prevent the attacks on 9/11." Have you ever taken a basic statistics course?? Edit: You also conveniently forgot this part...bold is my edit. There goes your negligence angle.
If you actually believe that 1/3 of Americans think the US government was complicit you are on crack.
Ah, the ol' "I have no evidence for my argument, so, you're wrong!" I see my work is done here...night folks.
I don't think that anybody with common sense believes that the Bush government was behind the attacks, but many people do believe that it put up with them (there's too many reasons for doubts & conspiracies) in order to start the Iraq war. If you focus your attention towards Saddam Hussein just 1 day after 9/11, you don't have to wonder about distrust... Dude, that's absolute nonsense!
There are few things more entertaining than watching U.S. conservatives get all huffy because the world holds the strikingly radical opinion that Bush is an idiot.
I made this point in my earlier post, a lot of the love for Obama in Europe comes from the fact that he, both as a person and as a politician is almost diametrically the opposite of Dubya. He'll have to deal with a totally different public opinion if and when he gets elected. Also, there are some European commentators who will try to sell off a McCain victory as proof of American intolerance when they damn well know that no person of color would stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming their head of state. I recently read an analysis of the amount of racial minorities among senators and representatives all over Europe. It wasn't pretty. Basically, if a European ever tries to lecture you guys on this subject, you can tell him to shove his holier-than-thou attitude up his/her ass. We're still decades behind you guys in this area. Heck, only last year a black schepen (=flemish municipal councelor with some executive functions) was the centre of controverse when several couples refused to be married by him. Because of the color of his skin. (Explanation: legal marriage is the responsibility of the "schepen van burgerlijke stand" in Belgium. They can choose to delegate said responsibility to their administration or actually do it themselves. In cities and larger towns, they tend to delegate, but in the smaller towns, a lot of the time they do it themselves. As was the case with this schepen.)
Define huge... Because with the anniversary of 9/11 we discussed what we did on that day at work, and I personally don't know any tinfoil hat wearers. Sure, you'll find some people who believe that in Europe. But they are a very, very small minority. I'd say possibly even smaller than the amount of Americans who believe it was an inside job.
After VFish told me I suddenly realized I too have always believed 9/11 was an inside job. I just never realized it up until this point. Thank you for clarifying that, VFish.
I am sure many comentators in Latin America would say the same, and what you say about Europe regarding people of African descent is also true about most Latin American countries. In Argentina we elected a president of Arab descent, but the attitudes towards African blacks are still different, and sadly, I doubt Obama would even be considered a serious candidate if he was Argentine, mostly because of his race. But, I think it will be easy for anybody with half a brain to determine whether a McCain victory can be shown to prove intolerance or not. All you have to do is look at the demographics. If the voting patterns bear a general resemblance to the numbers of past elections, and the last one, Bush vs Kerry, in particular, and minor deviations can be easily explained without resorting to race, then we can probably rule out race as a main factor. If you see significant segments of white voters who supported Kerry now supporting McCain, and they determine the election, then the case could easily be made that race was a factor. But of course, logic won't deter those who want to blame it on race, in America and abroad. At any rate, I still think the democrats have the inside track to win, although it looks like it will probably be closer than I expected. Either way, I doubt race will be a deciding factor.
I don't think anyone denies that a segment of people will vote for McCain because of race (same with Obama, although most of these people would've voted Democratic anyway). That doesn't mean that McCain couldn't win without the racist vote, however.
Do you mean mostly people who would have voted democrat if they had nominated a white candidate, but because Obama is black (half black) they will vote Republican? Or mostly people who would not have voted at all if both candidates where white, but the fact that Obama is black will motivate them to participate and vote against him?
Actually, you'll need to look at crosstabs. Specifically, you have to look at the percentage of voters who say that race was a factor in the exit polls (and you KNOW pollsters will ask that question). I dunno. Obama lost Ohio's democratic primary because of race. And I have the exit polling to prove it. If you assume the racist voters would have voted in the proportions the non-racist voters did, Obama wins Ohio. That's even adjusting to remove Obama's benefit from identity politics in the AA community.
Both. Let's also not forget here that there probably isn't a single other country in the world where blacks aren't a majority, where a black man would have a realistic chance to become President (or the equivalent). Maybe Canada.
How many people voting based on race will admit it, though?? I want McCain to win, and I hope he does it by enough of a margin that racists aren't the ones putting him over the top. That said, I don't think either candidate should have to apologize for their racist supporters unless they deliberately pander to them.
It was a 10 point swing in Ohio. That's just the people who admitted it. Dunno. I'm a little afraid it will. (I'd still be afraid it will if the races were flipped, BTW.) We do do better with race than a lot of other developed countries. We seem to do worse with gender, tho. That said, Obama gained very few votes in Ohio from "anti-woman" voters. Way way way less than Clinton gained from "anti-black" voters.