Adventure Game Studio

Since I only watch Comedy Central's Daily Show online and the Liberal media here in europe, it feels like Obama already won. I however dont want to count my chickens untill they are hatched. This is the same country that gave Bush a second term (because his first term was such a succes). The silent majority has not yet spoken.
I'm always interested in hearing who the yanks are going to vote for and why.

An ex speech writer for George Bush on the Colbert Report, last night, said "McCain cannot win this Election, but Obama can lose it".

I think that is a fair assesment, there is very little McCain can do to convince America nowadays, at least from this outsiders perspective, but Obama could do lots to tip the scales in the wrong direction.

But did not the democrats always lead pre-elections and then lose? At least the last 2 times.

I used to think there wouldn't be a world war 3.

I think this time the Democrats are too far away for expecting a third "last minute" Republican recovery.

Which is good, because Obama will win, and people complaining about Bush will realise that the alternative is same shit with different smell. Politicians are politicians. If a teenages awakes up one day and says "Hey! I want to be a politician" he can't be good.  :D

As long as there isn't the same voter fraud that got Bush in office, I think we're safe to say that Obama has this election.

Hmm, suppose I'll be voting for him anyways. I voted Gore in 2000 but in 2004 it was more of a vote against Bush than a vote for Kerry, but...


I for one am really looking forward to post-Americanism, hoping the US bankrupts itself eventually with all the inane spending and unwarranted security measures, and something new and different comes out of it. It had it's time in the spotlight just like all of histories major powers that eventually could not sustain themselves.

I'm so tired of it.

QuoteBut did not the democrats always lead pre-elections and then lose? At least the last 2 times.

I looked at the polls from across the whole of the Bush-Kerry election, and Bush was ahead for the whole of the last third of the race. McCain's situation isn't even remotely comparable, though I'm sure you weren't meaning to compare it exactly.

McCain really can't come back. The only possibility for McCain is a pretty horrific October surprise that knocks Obama (although I reckon such a thing would knock McCain more), coupled with the polls being massively inaccurate or a poor turnout (both unlikely).

Basically, the only question is whether this will be an Obama landslide.

McCain will be President.  The Electoral College puts who they want in office and I highly doubt they want Obama in there.  They want a rich white-dude in office.

Personally I don't give a shit either way.  No matter who the president is he's still a politician (as Nacho said) and is a liar and a crook and the rest of the world will still complain about him and hate the U.S.  I don't see anything changing there.  What I'd like to see change is the removal of bi-partisanship and/or have the democrats or republicans stop putting up duds as their nominees.  Sadly, this isn't likely to happen.

However ... I see dark times for my country either way.  I see it like this:

Obama wins
We have a no-experience black president.  All the ignorant racist white folks will bitch about the 'ni99er' (censored for you sensitive folk) president and all the ignorant racist black people will be on high horses thinking they're entitled to something because the president is black.

Obama loses
Good lord!!  The country erupted when some low-life druggie (Rodney King) got beat up by some white cops can you just imagine if Obama doesn't win?  Or even worse, he wins the popular vote but the electoral college doesn't vote him in?!?!  It'll be a nightmare!

And I think Obama is very likely to win the popular vote because a lot of white people think it's 'cool' to vote for him 'cause he's black and they can show how un-racist they are (rather than paying attention to what he's saying) and a lot of black people are simply going to vote for him 'cause he's black.

Case in point; listen to this and puke with me (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU)

Dangerous ignorance.

Sad times are a'comin'...

Yes, no one could possibly want to vote for Obama because they genuinely like his policies!  They must all be voting so the tiny spark of conscience in them doesn't feel racist, just this once.

That's not what I said.  Not even close really.

QuoteAnd I think Obama is very likely to win the popular vote because a lot of white people think it's 'cool' to vote for him 'cause he's black and they can show how un-racist they are (rather than paying attention to what he's saying) and a lot of black people are simply going to vote for him 'cause he's black.

Which bit didn't you say?

If you want to interpret "a lot of people" as "EVERYbody" then so be it.  I won't get into a pointless debate on semantics.  Bottom line, she insinuated something that I did not say.  I said "a lot of people..." and not "everybody is ..."  I really don't see why this is difficult to comprehend.

Don't forget that "Obama/Biden presidency landslide" is an anagram of "Osama Bin Laden led presidency bid"

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 23/10/2008 22:19:45
If you want to interpret "a lot of people" as "EVERYbody" then so be it.

Well, in that case it's still pretty close.

Also:

QuoteNo matter who the president is he's still a politician (as Nacho said) and is a liar and a crook and the rest of the world will still complain about him and hate the U.S.  I don't see anything changing there.

I know that I, for one would get my hopes up that the majority of U.S. citizens would have come to their senses if Obama would win.. Might be my liberal Norwegian point of view, but I can't even see why the republicans are even a possible contender. Goddamn conservatism.

Pointless semantics indeed. Okay. How's this?

Yes, most people wouldn't possibly want to vote for Obama because they genuinely like his policies!  They must all be voting so the tiny spark of conscience in them doesn't feel racist, just this once.

Well you conveniently didn't mention that any one would consider voting for Obama because they genuinely agree with his political positions, I think that's possibly a big factor in why people might potentially vote for him?

You realise that saying:

Quotea lot of black people are simply going to vote for him 'cause he's black

is the same thing as saying:

Quotea lot of women are simply going to vote for Sarah Palin 'cause she's female

which is a ridiculous statement to make.  You cannot reduce the political agency of a whole sector of society into such black and white terms without coming across as bigoted.  And suggesting that because you said "a lot of people" rather than "every person" somehow removes you from the responsibility of the words you said is a cop out.

.

You seem to be taking a worst-case-voter-scenario and making it out to be the most important issue with voters Darth. Believe it or not, not everyone votes for people in their same demographic, or does the opposite to not feel racist. It is not compulsory to disclose your vote to anyone.

I could not help but notice that you gave each scenario post-election in almost entirely racial terms, as if the majority of voters are not enlightened enough to operate outside these stereotypes.

The media here does tend to operate in extremes, but that is just television. Many political Bloggers are the same, paranoid people who think they are in a majority just because radical views are most of what is on television :P

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 23/10/2008 21:47:02
No matter who the president is he's still a politician

What I'd like to see change is the removal of bi-partisanship

OK, just highlighted those two comments.

1. If you want a country to improve, you have to get involved in politics - you can't just discount it. Unfortunately, politicians will always get flack for their job title. Just watch them and listen to them and make your mind up, instead of discounting everyone pointlessly with "well, all of them are dirty politicians".

2. Only having two parties has already dissolved democracy, not having any room for stark disagreement between those two would only dissolve it further.

Quote from: markbilly on Thu 23/10/2008 22:41:24
2. Only having two parties has already dissolved democracy, not having any room for stark disagreement between those two would only dissolve it further.

Indeed, it is sad that in 30+ states (mostly those with the most electoral votes) there will be 6 names on the ballot for president, yet a good many people have only heard of 2 or 3 of them. When you can pick between more brands of peanut butter at the shop than you can with the president, things can get 'nutty' XD

I'm voting for Obama. Not because I'm black (because I'm not; I'm white), and not because I want to appear non-racist (because that's not the issue at all). I'm voting for him because I like his policies, his intentions, his stances... and I'm sick of the Bush administration. McCain can claim to be a maverick all he wants, but that word is thrown around so much they've forgotten what it meant. I"m also sick of the negative campaigning from McCain's side. On McCain's site a week or two ago, there were TWO HUGE pictures of Obama, his opponent. Obama was the focus of McCain's campaign until just recently. And now McCain is grasping at straws trying to bring up people from Obama's past, but not being very successful in finding anything solid to throw at Obama.

How about this: Obama wins. There are no riots, no claims of racism or non-racism, and people are OK with it. Hell, he even makes a great president.

As for experience, that's a silly thing to bring up. I remember hearing that Reagan (or some other president) had just as much experience as Obama had, and was a great president. I can't remember specifics, so don't take my word on that. Either way, how much experience is needed to become president exactly? All that is required is for the person to be 35 or over and an American citizen. He was voted by his party to be the candidate for presidency. If other senators, congressmen, and other politicians say that he has enough experience, and if the American pubic at large voted him as the candidate, then why question his experience?

The only time a candidate will ever have 'more experience' than the other, is when a President runs for his/her second term.

It's also funny how McCain claims that Obama will "say anything to win". He complained that Obama added a work requirement to his proposal to grant a 10% universal mortgage credit. Come to find out, the plan had always included a work requirement.

Now who's "saying anything to win"?

It's crap like that that tarnishes my view of McCain with every passing day.

Would it make everybody feel better if I changed it to, "some people" instead of, "a lot of people"?

Would  that sooth all the delicate nerves?

I never said "all voters are doing this as a race thing" ... I never even implied that.  But if everybody wants to bury their head in the sand and think that the fact that Obama is black isn't an issue by all means go right ahead.  Whether we want to play all 'enlightened', and falsely accuse me of being a bigot, it is an issue to a lot of people (as I stated in my original point). Personally I don't care that the man is black (I was raised to judge a person on their actions, not on the color of their skin).  I care that he's a presidential-level politician and, as such, I'm extremely hesitant to trust him even a little bit.  How quickly we forget the every presidential candidate campaigns on all these lofty goals and ambitions and then, when elected into office, accomplishes none of them.  "But this time it's different!" just like it was in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1266 ... blah blah blah.

Quote from: Becky on Thu 23/10/2008 22:27:15
You realise that saying:

Quotea lot of black people are simply going to vote for him 'cause he's black

is the same thing as saying:

Quotea lot of women are simply going to vote for Sarah Palin 'cause she's female

which is a ridiculous statement to make.  You cannot reduce the political agency of a whole sector of society into such black and white terms without coming across as bigoted.  And suggesting that because you said "a lot of people" rather than "every person" somehow removes you from the responsibility of the words you said is a cop out.

It's actually not ridiculous.  I'd wager there are quite a few ("some" if it makes us all feel better) women voting for McCain because of Palin being a woman.  Do you truly believe that there are no women doing this?  Or no black people voting for Obama because he's black (even though my link shows this is the case)?  Do you truly believe that McCain (and his campaign people) didn't, in some part, choose her (a woman) to compete with Obama being black? I am not reducing the 'whole sector of society' into anything.  I made a point that a lot of people will vote for Obama 'cause he's black (rather than having any idea about his politics) and then provided a link to some actual proof on the subject.  I'm not bigoted and I don't appreciate being labeled falsely like that.

Nor is it a cop out.

Anyway you look at it: 'A lot' does not equal 'all'. Period.

Again, if it's really that hard to grasp the concept of "a lot" I will amend my previous statement to use "some".  If it's really necessary.

Jeez dudes, does Darth not deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Was it a generalization? Sure. Is that reason to jump on him and demand satisfaction? I don't think so.

I prescribe 10ccs of Cinnabon! STAT!

While Darth does have a point, I keep hearing the race issue from everyone I talk to. Why does it even have to be about that? :(
/me eats a Cinnabon roll

;D

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 23/10/2008 23:57:40
every presidential candidate campaigns on all these lofty goals and ambitions ...

Even Republicans? I thought they campaigned on greed and lining their own pockets, which certainly the last 3 Republicans presidents achieved.

It is a difficult thing to talk about really, I think there will be Americans who will vote for Obama because he is black but again, there will be Americans who will vote for McCain because he is white. Policies aside.

Having a Black president of America would, to many, symbolise a step forward, but really, it shouldn't symbolise anything. If we really have made such a step. Colin Powell said he would back Obama, many said this was because he was black, but there are many ex-republicans who are backing Obama too, is this all because Colin Powell is black?

Having watched the Presidential and VP debates, I do believe in Obama's policies over those of McCain and I really do hope that the American populous will agree with me. That might be because I am a liberal student, and Obama is just saying the right things to make me interested, but as it stands, I believe that Obama's policies represent what is best for the international community.

Oh! bah! Mah!

The Republicrats don't offer any solutions to any of the important issues.  They prefer, instead, to sling mud at each other as per usual.  There are much better candidates you don't even know about out there, like Chuck Baldwin, who have the knowledge to repair the broken economic system in America.

Also, I don't consider voting your conscience to be throwing away a vote.  That's bullshit, and if fewer people thought that way then less-mainstream candidates would be better represented.  People need to stop being so damned pessimistic and start standing up for what they believe in, win or lose.

Ugh. Politics. America flips a coin.

Could be worse, I suppose.

(http://cellar.org/2008/echidna.jpg)

You could start off life looking like a scrotum. Or playing second fiddle to Sy Snootles.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 24/10/2008 00:05:18
Jeez dudes, does Darth not deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Was it a generalization? Sure. Is that reason to jump on him and demand satisfaction? I don't think so.

Thanks ... I think?

Although I didn't make a generalization.

Quote from: SSH on Fri 24/10/2008 00:09:33Even Republicans? I thought they campaigned on greed and lining their own pockets, which certainly the last 3 Republicans presidents achieved.

Sure, they just make lofty promises to a different group of voters than the enlightened group that frequent these forums :P

Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 24/10/2008 02:16:37The Republicrats don't offer any solutions to any of the important issues.  They prefer, instead, to sling mud at each other as per usual.

This is another issue I have ... I cannot stand the kindergarten-playground-insults between grown men on national television ads.  When I can get through an election year where I see ads for a candidate that are only about their positive stuff and not their opponent's short-comings I might be inclined to vote for them.  It's disgusting to see two men, one of whom will be the President of the United States waging cry-baby wars with their opponent.

To all you people saying, "He's just a politician", "They're all the same" - I highly encourage you to step back away from that point of view and take a look at the state of things.

Obama may not be perfect, but by fucking george, he is a genuinely intelligent, thoughtful, articulate and well-educated person. For the most part, he strives, and promises to continue to strive for the future, for people, for the environment, for getting America out of so much of the shit that it's in, and for trying to do things in the most practical and smartest way possible.

I... I don't even know what to say. There are a million things that make him a far, far, far, far, far better candidate than McCain.


Be skeptical, sure.  But the decision right now is like the one between eating a piece of delicious-looking cake and a poisoned brick. The cake MAY be past it's expiry date. It MAY have yucky raisins and peel in it. But it probably doesn't. It's probably a delicious cake. But the poisonous brick will just plain suck.

McCain is an awful, awful politician. He is EXACTLY more of the fucking same. I will cry my eyes out if he gets elected.

To talk about minor issues here and there is fine, but don't get caught up in them. We are still talking about the difference between eating DELICIOUS CAKE and A POISONOUS BRICK.

I wish I could do more than just encourage you all to register (if you aren't already) and vote for Obama. I sure wish I could!

I think a lot of Americans who supported Bush - or at least not opposed him - and now see the results develop some sort of indifference as a self defense.
"It's the same shit anyway, who cares, nothing matters".

Well, the two democratic canditates who competed with Bush might have been utter bores, but they weren't glaringly incompetent. Bush is now breaking new records in terms of low approval ratings on a weekly basis. He's run both your economy and your global reputation to the bottom and no, history will not prove him right.

And for crying out loud, now you've got the chance; you have a candidate who's young and dedicated, eloquent and intelligent. Don't give us the "same stuff same shit" argument, for it is flawed. Take a step back, open your eyes. Believe in your system. It's not rotten to the core, it can be salvaged.

I'm all for Obama but still don't swell in any illusions of a so-called "change" in Americas policy*...

Especially since Obamas foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is one hell of a conservative asshole.

He wrote this book "The world as a grand chessboard" and that's really what he thinks. It's like a game and the goal is to defend the USA's status as the only superpower (yet). I only read articles about that in german, but here are some links and, well, of course you can google yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

The second point is the little difference between Democrats and Republicans. Even if Obama would like to really change things, he just wouldn't be able. Both parties are kneedeep involved in the economy and wouldn't dare to make any imprtant businessman angry. And they wouldn't dare to stop angressions in parts of the world that keep important natural resources the USA could use for themselves.


* ..some days ago I learned the difference between policy, politics and polity, but I already forgot and don't want to look it up. In german it's just one word.

QuoteDon't give us the "same stuff same shit" argument, for it is flawed.

Sorry but a vote for Obama is just another vote for status quo, which I am thoroughly opposed to at this point.  He'll change nothing.  He'll continue America's conquest of the Middle East (which he's said numerous times, though he didn't say '100 years if necessary' as McCain did), he's got no concept of solid economics based on the very, very few actual discussions he's had about it, and he's a just a face.  He flip-flops on any given day to make himself look good to as many people possible so it's hard to find out just where the fuck he actually stands, and that's not someone I want running this country.  So no, please don't tell me that by not voting for him I'm using flawed judgment.  I've read considerable amounts of non-mainstream information on these people and neither McCain nor Obama offer anything but a total economic collapse and a continual war in the middle east.  Also, anyone who researches American economic policy (which I do) could tell that Bush did not cause this economic situation by himself, he's merely exposed a lingering problem thats been developing since 1975-77, the boom-bust cycle of inflationary currency combined with a growing lack of savings.  You can't maintain a debtor nation forever.

Sure.
McCain prefers to bomb countries straight-out instead of first going into diplomatic talks.

McCain wants tax cuts for the rich, Obama gives tax cuts for the poor and middle class and heightens the taxes for the rich ones.

McCain also wants to lower the taxes for big corporations, though the taxes for them are already quite low because of the countless loopholes. Obama wants to plug those.

McCain may be more experienced than Obama, but while Obama isn't so long in politics I think he learns fast.

McCain (or more Palin) is talking about the real America and those wonderful small town where the world is still so happy and idyllic as it should be which sounds to me like they want to further seperate the country like Bush did in his term. Obama wants to unite the country.

Yep, status quo indeed.  :-\

Sure, you don't know if Obama will do all the things he promises. I think he won't since not all of his promises seem to be financially affordable.
But the same goes for McCain.

And Darth, Nixon or Kennedy, Carter or Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton, those didn't make a difference, right?  ::)

I'm voting for Obama because he seems to actually care about the middle class, unlike Republicans who make a better show of supporting the middle class, and then give tax cuts to the rich and try to privatize Social Security when they get into power.

That being said, I used to have a lot of respect for McCain, before it became obvious that he knows this is his last shot at the presidency, and he is desperate enough to do anything to get it.  Not just through negative campaigning, but by distancing himself from his own previous positions and cosying up to people like Jerry Falwell to try to suck up to his base.  I know that all politicians must do this in an election, but I thought McCain had more integrity than that.

Also, I would like the Republicans to be taken out of power, for many reasons, but mostly for the rampant cronyism.  I cannot stand when people are chosen for jobs they are not qualified for simply because they have the right political connections.  From FEMA to the politicization of the CIA and the Justice Department, Republicans have given complete schmucks immense power just because they wave the right political flag, and I'm sick of it.  I don't care whether a Democrat or a Republican holds a particular job, as long as they are qualified for that job.

Well, at least both Presidential candidates are opposed to torture. *sigh*

People seem to think that the democrats are the anti-republicans, which is why I never liked the two party system.

Voting for the democrats does not mean you are automatically voting for the opposite of what the republican party stands for. This isn't the rebels vs the empire.

And it's never as simple as Obama vs McCain.

Oil, steel, the NRA, the Catholic League, the Christian Right, the Nation of Islam, OPEC, General Motors, Lockheed Martin, the tobacco lobby, Rupert Murdoch, Hollywood, Wal-Mart...

Will Obama change things? Can he? Is McCain just an extension of the Bush administration? The War on Terror couldn't have happened with the support of the Democrats, nor would the Patriot Act have been passed. If you disagree with some of McCain's policies, will voting Obama mean those policies will not come to pass?

Ugh. Politics.

Obama promises enough to make him seem like the better choice. You can't second-guess yourselves, so there's little real point in claiming nothing will change. It might, it might not. But seeing the direction America has gone under Republican leadership, I'd like to see something different.

If such change is actually attainable.

I used to ignore all the choose-the-president circus. US is directly on opposite side of the earth...

But those three debates, I watched them on youtube.
Methinks:

Obama

..."I will make world a better place"
Even though he's old enough to be president, to me he feels like an ambitious high-school kid, with "innovative" tattooed onto his arse. Head full of ideas, and empty of experience. I'm TERRIBLY sorry if this goes over someone's line defining "racism", but US is a country of white people always led by white people. All the presidents before, through short history of this country are usually old, clever white men. And well imaginable in historical cotton plantation, smoking cigars and whipping people like Obama. Simply... White House feels like totally wrong place for Obama. Like a chicken in a nest of foxes. Even though world has changed much and thinking too... but it still feels somewhat... wrong. Or exciting?

He being a muslim is another strange piece of irony in this bizarre picture. And a treehugger. Also, he doesn't leave strong image at all. Hippie to be a most influential man on earth? From this side of globe, it looks like a circus.

If he would win, it would be helluva interesting reign. I believe his character would stand out in history books to come. Judging from his debates, probably as an active education/health care/environment care reformer and author of numerous (failed, though ambitious) projects on same area, which next rulers would probably cancel.

He would lead US like a log raft over an ocean, being optimistic against all odds and realizing that it's mission impossible... probably too late.

You cannot change world much in only 4 years. Unless your first name is Adolf...

McCain

...the oldschool populist...
is definitely more president material. In historic sense. White man with white hair, white teeth and snake-like smile. Old fox who knows mass manipulation and media tricks, hungers for power and has no "fix-the-world" mentality. He would result most likely in boring, stable and un-progressive reign. Maybe start a war with Iran or sink the economy even lower. Upset masses with some gestapo'ish decisions, similar Patriot Act and people would soon get bored of him.

He would probably rule US like his personal company, plantation or farm. Or army? Kill some good projects and maybe succeed on some too. US would probably get more aggressive image in the world, military-wise. Teachers and doctors will probably hate this man. Even if country gets worse, HIS life will surely improve over those 4 years.

But he has the  smile. I don't know if it's me or some coincidence, but all US presidents I've seen have the smile. There's a voting, and the man with the smile wins. Bill Clinton? A man with potato nose and rat eyes. But smile, it made him the president. Obama does not possess the smile.  :(

This is how those 2 men make me feel about them.
To be honest, my sleep would be better with McCain on the throne - with armed men in his fist -- and morning newspaper would be better with Obama ruling -- to see what did he got into this time. Obama seems more interesting because of his ambitious and somewhat more intelligent approach.

But either way, candidates suck somehow. Then again, neither of them is Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman), the shame of the world, and that's best about them.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong here. But this is how it looks from this end.
All americans here, wish you luck with your next leader.

I'd rather vote for Obama and not be sure of the bad job he'll do, than vote for McCain and know for sure he'll be awful.

And Obama is NOT a Muslim! He's always been a Christian. God, the rumors and myths going around about Obama are just laughable.

Quote from: Becky on Thu 23/10/2008 22:27:15
Well you conveniently didn't mention that any one would consider voting for Obama because they genuinely agree with his political positions, I think that's possibly a big factor in why people might potentially vote for him?

You realise that saying:

Quotea lot of black people are simply going to vote for him 'cause he's black

is the same thing as saying:

Quotea lot of women are simply going to vote for Sarah Palin 'cause she's female

which is a ridiculous statement to make.  You cannot reduce the political agency of a whole sector of society into such black and white terms without coming across as bigoted.  And suggesting that because you said "a lot of people" rather than "every person" somehow removes you from the responsibility of the words you said is a cop out.

It is ridiculous if you assume that people are intelligent.
Truth is, most (or atleast, seriously influential portion) of them are not. And low IQ doesn't deny voting.
And it's, ehm-- what country was it again?

QuoteAnd Obama is NOT a Muslim! He's always been a Christian. God, the rumors and myths going around about Obama are just laughable.

Aw. I even knew it - checked his bio from wiki before getting into thing -- but forget it. Rumors and myths and of course, his NAME always mislead. Nothing to see here, just another victim of media, move along--

But I don't really see how next biggest mass murderer and liferuiner (there are wars, there are bad environmental decisions, and there are bad decisions) of the world could face any God after his death.
Plus, I don't find religious people perfectly sane (though i know that it's saying "shoot me" in this forum).

Obama wrote "muslim" when he had to fill in the space dedicated to that matter in his documents for the University.

Of course, we know he is christian, Terran is right (He had problems with one of the priests he visited at the beginning of the campaing, no?) but he was obviously curious about that religion.

Which is something I basically give a shit.

A "Muslim" can be as good president as a Christian, Hebrew, or Sinthoist... About this whole thing, two things scare me:

-Why people really gives a shit about this for voting.
-Why universities want to know which is your religion.

And InCreator, you can type it: "United States"... It' s not going to bite you. ;)

EDIT: Checking it in SNOPES... I was quite sure that the sources about Obama signing as "muslim" in his University papers were reliable, but I am not really sure now. Anyway, I keep with my deduction: If he is, who cares?

about racism too...
I find it somewhat strange how afraid (american) people are of that word. It's not like when slavery ended, blacks enslaved whites for revenge and taught them a lesson.

The phobia has crossed the line of ignorance long ago.
Haha, I guess it's a matter of time - in this crazy, sick civilization of political correctness - when racists turn the tables and people will call them "differently opinioned people about color pigment in humanoid skin" because someone finds "racist" offensive word :D

Obama's skin color still - as much it feels from the media - is an issue to very large amount of people.

I think that in place of such responsibility, skin color or religion shouldn't really be an issue.
But whether man IS religious (NOT what's his religion), that's a considerable variable.
But that's ideal version. Life is simpler and more idiotic.

Well, it' s not so weird... Before, racism existed, and it was an irrational fear of someone for having certain skin colour.

Now, that exist on people for borning in a certain country.

I know Obama is a secularist, 100%. Which is exactly what America needs, I president with a view on religion that concurs with their constitution. No one should care about anything else with regards to his religion.

P.S. Have you seen Obama smile? ( ;D ) McCain smirks.

A bit off-topic, but this is a funny piece to laugh at. Reminds me of Bush, but it's McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnE-YJ---GI

haha, I couldn't help it--but i'm going to post this here.  I remember hearing on the radio Sarah Palin stumbling with the questions on which magazines she reads, so I wanted to see a youtube video of it.
This is what I 'thought' was the real video until the ending.. LMAO  I thought someone attacked her.  Doh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ

Nacho, that is a good point: a candidate's religion should not matter. Who here wants to tell a 7-year-old Muslim American that he or she can never be president despite their dreams?

Quote from: TerranRich on Sat 25/10/2008 06:57:27Nacho, that is a good point: a candidate's religion should not matter. Who here wants to tell a 7-year-old Muslim American that he or she can never be president despite their dreams?

In an ideal world yeah, a candidate's religion shouldn't matter.  Just like black people shouldn't be voting for Obama simply because he's black and women shouldn't vote for McCain simply because Palin is a woman.  However ... we live in a FAR from ideal world and these are sad realities.

Too many religion freaks will rally around, "this country was founded by Christians and we need a Christian as President!!".

Personally I think only atheists should be President.  Too many religious nut-bags are in power over the world and make stupid decisions based off of books written thousands of years ago that have no practical use in the modern world.  I am really not comfortable with a person (President) making decisions about my future, who truly believes human-kind winked into existence 10,000 years ago because a book (written so long ago they still believed in magic) claims it was so.

I smell another religion good/evil thread-hijacking comin' on :)

I totally agree.  Religion should be off-the-paper and out of the political arguments.
I was watching the old recordings with Obama on Meet the Press on youtube, and they spent the first 8-10 minute segment on Obama's preacher going rogue.  He started preaching some shit about White superiority and Black inferiority always going to be in USA.  And Tim kept asking if these were Obama's beliefs as well.  The whole time I kept thinking 'Just Drop IT!  Let it go. Ask more important questions!'.  Obviously, even if they were Obama's beliefs, he's not going to answer that they are.  And secondly, it's his preacher saying it, not him.

Religious people can be so blind.  It doesn't belong in politics.

I disagree with this sentiment.
I wouldn't care if the president has a religious belief, because it's his personal thing. Many people need religion as a spiritual guide in their life, that's okay.

But it becomes a problem if the president justifies his actions through his religion. Like Bush does.

Religion, IMO, is beautiful add-on to governing the nation.
I mean like when president addresses nations with "let us pray for our soliders/people in crisis right now/whatever"
And military burials and christmas wishes and so on.

It's simply an unifying gesture, nothing serious. A beautiful thing to do.

But ducking behind God to justify some evil act or having religion as deciding variable in ANY of important decisions, no.
--agreeing ozzie here, he said better.

Hi guys,

Just wanted to interrupt all the political analysis to post a link to this site:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

It's one of the best sites I've seen this year.

It collects current and past tracking data from every state plus national polling data, makes adjustments for demographics and runs through 1000 scenarios to generate electoral college votes plus popular votes. Also does vote distributions, maps, and most recently the Senate Projections.

This tracking algorithm's creator, Nate Silver, also developed the same algorithm to track and project baseball stats (PECOTA system). Many are touting his FiveThrityEight site as the best projection tool for this election because of how in-depth it is and how well it tracked the primaries.

Anyway, long story short: The site says Obama's going to win and McCain is royally fucked.

Thank you and goodnight.

P.S. And yes, I've heard of the The Bradley Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Effect) but Silver has already debunked it (http://www.newsweek.com/id/165030).

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 25/10/2008 15:27:47
In an ideal world yeah, a candidate's religion shouldn't matter.  Just like black people shouldn't be voting for Obama simply because he's black and women shouldn't vote for McCain simply because Palin is a woman.  However ... we live in a FAR from ideal world and these are sad realities.

I think that this whole "black/woman" thing is generally a load of rubbish. Going back to the UK election in 1979, Margaret Thatcher didn't win it because she was a woman, she won it because people were sick of the economic situation and the current government, and she promised change that people at the time believed in. Was the fact that she would be the first woman Prime Minister an issue at the time? Well, I'm sure it was mentioned in the media a few times. But her being female wasn't what decided the election.

There seem to be some large parallels with America's current situation, and I think the same thing applies. Obama's probably going to win, but it won't be because he's black. It'll simply be because people believe that he's the right man to get the country out of its current situation.

The media likes to concentrate on stories of communities of poor black people registering to vote for the first time to back Obama -- but he couldn't really be more middle-class, so I don't really see the connection -- it's not like Obama can claim to understand the inner-city life of poverty.

Pase lo que pase, it'll be interesting to see what happens to US policies over the coming months and years.

I think I'm being misunderstood ...

I'm not saying Obama will win because he's black.  Or that if McCain wins it's because Palin is female.  I'm simply saying that there are [a lot of] people that will cast their votes due to these facts.  That's all.  I feel that point was [reasonably] proven with the link I provided in my first post in this thread.  Those people had NO clue about the person they are voting for.  True, none of them admitted that it's because he's black but I think it's a logical conclusion to draw given just how little they knew what they were talking about.

I get upset sometimes because when I hear Obama's speeches it almost inspires me to vote for him (McCain's speeches do not).  He is a very good and eloquent speaker.  But then my skepticism kicks in and I realize that he's just a really good politician saying exactly what middle-class folks like myself want to hear (as all Presidential candidates have done for decades).  Am I just jaded and cynical?  Perhaps ... but it is, none-the-less, how I feel. 

Don't get me wrong, as I commented in the thread about Mods' passion with UFOs, I'd love to be proven wrong in this situation.  I'd love to see a generally honest and trustworthy man (or woman) sittin' in the Oval Office. (like Jed Bartlett)  However, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

Quote from: Ozzie on Sat 25/10/2008 17:03:58
I disagree with this sentiment.
I wouldn't care if the president has a religious belief, because it's his personal thing. Many people need religion as a spiritual guide in their life, that's okay.

But it becomes a problem if the president justifies his actions through his religion. Like Bush does.

And this is why Obama should be president, because he agrees with these points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvKX16Eygs0

The thing is though, to Darth and anyone else not voting because of this, (said by a friend of mine): You can choose not to affect the outcome but the outcome will still affect you.

Obama might not make good on all his promises but I believe that it will not be because he is "just another politician". And regardless, a vote for him is still like aiming for the moon but being amongst the stars, in the sense that he is still a genuinely eloquent, intelligent, caring and capable man.

I get that you're saying a lot of people will vote for him because he's black, but why make such a point of it? I think that's mostly where people have been taking issue with what you said. I think we could have had any other black man in this presidential campaign and though they would get some "black" vote, they wouldn't do anywhere NEAR as well as Obama. He's winning all kinds of people over and for a very good reason. Many very good reasons.

It makes no sense whatsoever not to vote.

If you think Obama will - at the end of the day - benefit from being black I don't think you know your country. I think there's an enormous amount of people who claim they will vote Obama just to be politically correct and then vote Mccain since they still have a streak of prejudice in them.
There's so much latent racism we will never know about.

QuotePersonally I think only atheists should be President.  Too many religious nut-bags are in power over the world and make stupid decisions based off of books written thousands of years ago that have no practical use in the modern world.  I am really not comfortable with a person (President) making decisions about my future, who truly believes human-kind winked into existence 10,000 years ago because a book (written so long ago they still believed in magic) claims it was so.

This is a really odd in light of the fact that many of America's most famous and outstanding Presidents and statesmen were religious, like Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson.  Washington and Jefferson specifically were Christian deists, meaning they believed in god and many aspects of the bible but did not specifically believe Jesus was the son of God.  Lincoln was raised in a strict Christian environment, though from his own correspondence it was clear his beliefs fell along more spiritual deist lines than the Baptist teachings of his parents.

These men were all very tolerant of other religions, and many other presidents besides.  I really don't see where you're coming from, since Bush is the only US President I'm aware of historically to regularly use religion as some kind of war cry.

QuoteIt makes no sense whatsoever not to vote.

It also makes no sense to vote for someone who you think will accomplish nothing when there are other men on the ballot who could affect change, but I suppose this is another one of those 'lesser of two evils' and 'oh my, but they have no chance because because because' arguments.

Religious or atheist, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether they are secularists, and the founding fathers and many other great presidents were exactly that...

Quote from: Andail on Sun 26/10/2008 11:13:22If you think Obama will - at the end of the day - benefit from being black I don't think you know your country. I think there's an enormous amount of people who claim they will vote Obama just to be politically correct and then vote Mccain since they still have a streak of prejudice in them.
There's so much latent racism we will never know about.

I know my country pretty well (I like to think)! I'm well aware of the latent racism (on all sides). Down here (in South Florida) we're calling it the 'Bubba Effect' (not sure what it's called elsewhere).  It's the white-boy-in-the-country who talks up voting for Obama to avoid being called racist, but when he's in the privacy behind the curtain his vote goes to McCain.  But again, this is a problem to me because they're (most likely) not voting for McCain because they want him as president but because they don't want Obama in office.  I refuse to vote for somebody I don't want as president just because I want the other guy less.  To me that's worse than voting for neither. (I believe this is what ProgZ feels too if I'm understanding him correctly).

This little debate we're having in this thread, ironically, symbolizes to me the very thing I find wrong with the political system in the U.S.  Each side is so convinced they're right (and that the other side is 'less intelligent' or not 'in the know' just because their view is in stark opposition) that it will just perpetually go back and forth with neither side winning or losing (though each side will think they're 'winning').  It's the nature of politics I suppose.

I'm not jabbin' at anybody in particular but I feel what I feel and I believe in it.  I'm open to new ideas and I understand other's points of views but just because you believe strongly in them doesn't make my ideas "wrong".  Just as I don't think your ideas are "wrong" ... we're just in opposition.  A little debate is nice from time to time ... but this will just go on and on and on and on ...

Nuthin' but love ... even to the opposition.

I'd say being black is as good reason as any. In a situation when this is a reason at all.
There are people who vote for his person and politics overall. Very little amount of people.

And then there's loads of people who vote for a single thing. A promise here or there, because he's black, because he has likeable voice, because some housewife finds him sexy, because he studied law, because this and that and that too. To a such list, skin color can be easily added.

Just like Obama will have probably votes for being black...
...McCain gets some for NOT being black.

And vice versa.
All this talk makes me feel like people really believe that being black is some kind of unfair advantage of his.
In democracy, people choose whoever they like. Even if it's only skin color...

No, you're absolutely right, Darth.  I vehemently stand against this lesser of two evils bullshit that's crept into mainstream American thought.  It makes me want to hurl buses full of politicians into the sun, and it's precisely the reason why we keep electing poor candidates instead of great ones.  People say 'but there isn't anyone good running this year!' without even looking at what the other parties (no, not the Republicrats) have on offer.  Ron Paul ran Libertarian against Bush in 2000 and now people are burying him with questions about how to save the economy.  The same goes with this year with his run as a Republican; he was still marginalized (and outright banned from some of the debates!) until people were coerced into thinking he had no chance at all, even though straw polls across the entire nation favored his message of simple friendship with nations, an end to empire building, and a restructuring of the economy over any of the other candidates.  This kind of shit should not go down in the country of our forefathers, and yet the old curmudgeons and the fatalists in this country continue to keep status quo.  I am confident that this is coming to an end and that we'll see a truly competent President in office with our best intrests in mind, it's just a question of how much more shit the 'lesser of two evils' are going to be willing to eat before they change their tune. 

Quote
It's the white-boy-in-the-country who talks up voting for Obama to avoid being called racist, but when he's in the privacy behind the curtain his vote goes to McCain.  But again, this is a problem to me because they're (most likely) not voting for McCain because they want him as president but because they don't want Obama in office.

I disagree with this analysis a bit.  What they are calling the "Bradley Effect", where people tell pollsters they are going to vote for the black candidate and then do otherwise on election day, in the past has happened exclusively in large cities and not in rural areas.   I think liberal leaning type folks are much more susceptible to being pressured into being politically correct than others.  The typical  "white-boy-in-the-country" doesn't give a shit about being politically correct and is more likely to straight-up say what he thinks.   

If it was just the "white-boy-in-the-country" responsible for this effect no body would be talking about it because by and large those folks don't vote for liberal democrats.   The reason it's being brought by the new media and the Obama folks is, IMHO, that they fear defection from their base.  Hillary supporters are, from what I understand, not very happy with the results of the nominating process and feel like they have been screwed.  It's possible some (or many) of them may be saying that they are voting Obama but won't do so.

My wife and I volunteer as civil rights testers for a non-profit fair housing organization.  The first thing they tell you in orientation is that you won't know if someone if discriminating against you or not.  They will be very polite and smile all the while screwing you royally.   My wife busted a number of companies as she later found out to her surprise as they were very nice and polite with her.   

It's much easier to deal with someone who will tell you straight up "I don't like you because you are _____." than it is to deal with people who will simle and be polite and then stab you in the back.   That's the kind of thing that sucks out your soul!  My wife will tell you from her experience that people who identify as liberals and/or democrats are by far the worst offenders.

Consider the possibility that political correctness was invented by people who are in their heart of hearts racists.  In their own lives they are careful to not say anything that would offend anyone lest their true nature be revealed.  That, however, dose not prevent them from acting out their feelings where no one will find out what they have done  or their motivation.  These people are careful to shield themselves behind plausible denyability or behind incompetent bureaucracies where they are not held accountable.   It would be an easy and natural step,  for people of this ilk to extend their personal rules of conduct to people around them.  Just a thought...

Anyway sorry for getting side tracked  :=

At least some people have the guts not to be politically correct! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8z3XFWzTU)

There's been so much misinformation, ignorance and straight up stupidity in the thread that it could make you cry. So I'll try not to get involved in any of the (stupid, stupid) discussions, and just point out some of the things that have been said that are wrong.

Quote from: Tuomas on Thu 23/10/2008 18:48:20
But did not the democrats always lead pre-elections and then lose? At least the last 2 times.

No. In 2000, Bush had a clear lead on Gore going into the election. Gore actually did much better (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/10/the_state_of_the_race_1.html) in the election itself (winning the popular vote and coming within a few hundred votes in a single state of winning the election) than he did in the pre-election polling. In 2004, Bush also had a clear lead (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html) on Kerry since the beginning of September.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 23/10/2008 21:47:02
McCain will be President.  The Electoral College puts who they want in office and I highly doubt they want Obama in there.  They want a rich white-dude in office.

Dude, the electoral college is not some powerful conspiracy that secretly rules the US; it's just a bunch of party hacks selected because they WILL vote for their party's candidate. If the Democrats get to appoint a majority of electors, which is based on the popular vote in each state, they will certainly name Obama president.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 23/10/2008 23:57:40
It's actually not ridiculous.  I'd wager there are quite a few ("some" if it makes us all feel better) women voting for McCain because of Palin being a woman.  Do you truly believe that there are no women doing this?  Or no black people voting for Obama because he's black (even though my link shows this is the case)?

Actually, polls show that Palin has more support among men than among women. As for the rest of it... just  ::)  >:(  :'(

I'll  :-X

Quote from: InCreator on Fri 24/10/2008 20:16:47
But he has the  smile. I don't know if it's me or some coincidence, but all US presidents I've seen have the smile. There's a voting, and the man with the smile wins. Bill Clinton? A man with potato nose and rat eyes. But smile, it made him the president. Obama does not possess the smile.  :(

Jesus Christ! Have you seen that grimace McCain makes to indicate satisfaction? It gives grown men nightmares (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/mccain_speechwriter_trying).

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 25/10/2008 23:49:40
Don't get me wrong, as I commented in the thread about Mods' passion with UFOs, I'd love to be proven wrong in this situation.  I'd love to see a generally honest and trustworthy man (or woman) sittin' in the Oval Office. (like Jed Bartlett)  However, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

OK, just a little bit of opinion/discussion here at the end: Jed Bartlett would not be a great, or even good president in reality. In his policies he was wildly inconsistent, often ignoring strong, rational arguments and listening instead to sentimental appeals. He seemed to govern based on whims and whatever the last person he spoke to told him. As a result, many of his ideas were purely populistic and potentially disastrous.

Far from being an honest and trustworthy man, he got himself elected under false pretenses, hiding a potentially debilitating disease, and choosing his vice-president based (as far as I can tell) solely on political expediency, ignoring the fact that they shared little in their views and priorities. (Thus creating the risk of the nation taking an unexpected sharp turn in defiance of what voters wanted if he were to become incapacitated.)

No, I'd much rather have Obama, or even McCain. For all the desperate negative campaigning of the last few weeks, and the disqualifying pick of Palin as his running mate, McCain has mostly conducted an admirably honorable campaign. Moreso than Hillary Clinton did, I'd argue. When the dust settles, I think people will come to respect that.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 25/10/2008 17:54:16
Hi guys,

Just wanted to interrupt all the political analysis to post a link to this site:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

It's one of the best sites I've seen this year.

Anyway, long story short: The site says Obama's going to win and McCain is royally fucked.

Yeah, 538 is good, although the fact that it's run by partisan Democrats, and some of the statistical methods it uses to "correct" various polls, makes me suspect it's more optimistic for Obama than the election results will actually be. Two other good sites for analyzing polls, trends etc. are RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/) and Pollster (http://pollster.com/). RCP in particular has become the benchmark in this election.

Both of these sites project an overwhelming victory for Obama, too. A win for McCain is not outside the realm of possibility (if he picks up a few points in the last week, and likely-voter models are off, and turnout is lower than expected among Obamaites, and he gets lucky in a few swing states, then... he'll still need a longshot, upset victory somewhere like Iowa or Pennsylvania), but it's definitely starting to move outside the zone of plausibility.

Quote from: Andail on Mon 27/10/2008 08:52:11
At least some people have the guts not to be politically correct! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8z3XFWzTU)

Not only is that video brilliant, but the comments are mostly amusing too.

(unless you're an American citizen, in which case I would assume they are very scary.)

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 16:24:07Dude, the electoral college is not some powerful conspiracy that secretly rules the US; it's just a bunch of party hacks selected because they WILL vote for their party's candidate. If the Democrats get to appoint a majority of electors, which is based on the popular vote in each state, they will certainly name Obama president.

I didn't say it was 'some powerful conspiracy'.  It is, however, an antiquated and totally unnecessary institution.  It served a good purpose 100 years ago, but it is no longer needed (in my opinion).  Now it's just a convenient system of control because the government (perhaps smartly) doesn't trust the American people to actually elect the American President.

Case in point; Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but was still put in office.  More votes 'by the people' were for Gore, yet we got shnocker'd with Bush for 8 years.  If this is how it's gonna be they need to change it from, "by the people" to, "by [a very small group of] the people"

I'm aware of the term 'representative democracy'

I'm aware that Bush was only the third president in history to be elected against the popular vote.  However, if it happens even once, that proves (to me) the point.

Granted I'm no expert on the subject.  But there is ZERO logic (in my way of thinking) to putting so much significance on making people vote (while providing duds as candidates), then tallying votes from all those that did vote and then basing the election off of something else.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 16:24:07Actually, polls show that Palin has more support among men than among women.

I'm sure the polls are correct (because they're polls after all).  However, that's not the point I was trying to make so I'm not sure what you mean by pointing to the polls.  I was simply pointing out that there will be some women inclined to vote for McCain because Palin is a woman.  I continue to marvel why this issue (and the other 'black/Obama' issue) is so difficult to understand??

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 16:24:07OK, just a little bit of opinion/discussion here at the end: Jed Bartlett would not be a great, or even good president in reality.

Dude seriously?? If you really thought I was serious about that I would point you to this...

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 16:24:07There's been so much misinformation, ignorance and straight up stupidity in the thread that it could make you cry.

... and TOTALLY agree with you :P

Not being confrontational ... but you calling any of us partaking in this thread "stupid", "wrong", and/or "ignorant" goes back to the point I made in my post:

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sun 26/10/2008 16:07:12This little debate we're having in this thread, ironically, symbolizes to me the very thing I find wrong with the political system in the U.S.  Each side is so convinced they're right (and that the other side is 'less intelligent' or not 'in the know' just because their view is in stark opposition) that it will just perpetually go back and forth with neither side winning or losing (though each side will think they're 'winning').  It's the nature of politics I suppose.

... but this will just go on and on and on and on ...

More of the same I suppose.

I don't think there's much stupidity in this thread, though possibly some ignorance (and by ignorance I mean a general lack of complete awareness of what's going on) from people here and there who rely purely on what they see on television or read in the newspaper.  This is not a crime, nor is it an attack on anyone's character.  To understand certain key issues facing the nation and to understand which candidate would best resolve these issues you really, really must go back, on your own, through their voting record and pay careful notice to how they have performed through the years rather than listening to any of their rhetoric.  Only by seeing their votes and bills they have championed do you really get a sense of where they stand with any clarity.  Everything else is just whitewash and political posturing, in my opinion. 

If you favor a candidate, take a day to look through their voting record on issues you feel are the most important ones facing your nation and then decide if they represent your beliefs closely enough or not.  You will often be surprised by how their record does not quite mesh with what they say in rallies, and it's their actions and not their words that should move you.

That's all I'm suggesting.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 27/10/2008 17:12:04

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 16:24:07Dude, the electoral college is not some powerful conspiracy that secretly rules the US; it's just a bunch of party hacks selected because they WILL vote for their party's candidate. If the Democrats get to appoint a majority of electors, which is based on the popular vote in each state, they will certainly name Obama president.

I didn't say it was 'some powerful conspiracy'.  It is, however, an antiquated and totally unnecessary institution.  It served a good purpose 100 years ago, but it is no longer needed (in my opinion).  Now it's just a convenient system of control because the government (perhaps smartly) doesn't trust the American people to actually elect the American President.

Case in point; Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but was still put in office.  More votes 'by the people' were for Gore, yet we got shnocker'd with Bush for 8 years.  If this is how it's gonna be they need to change it from, "by the people" to, "by [a very small group of] the people"

I'm aware of the term 'representative democracy'

I'm aware that Bush was only the third president in history to be elected against the popular vote.  However, if it happens even once, that proves (to me) the point.

Granted I'm no expert on the subject.  But there is ZERO logic (in my way of thinking) to putting so much significance on making people vote (while providing duds as candidates), then tallying votes from all those that did vote and then basing the election off of something else.

Maybe so. That's the system you have, though, and even with that small complication it does allow the American people to elect their head of state. As for the popular vote, it's been proven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem) that there is no voting system that is completely fair and always comes to the decision favored by most people. So from that point of view, a single round, single-vote popular ballot is just as arbitrary as any other system.

Anyway, I was responding to your claim that the Electoral College would pick McCain for President regardless of the election result. That's nonsense.

Quote

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 16:24:07Actually, polls show that Palin has more support among men than among women.

I'm sure the polls are correct (because they're polls after all).  However, that's not the point I was trying to make so I'm not sure what you mean by pointing to the polls.  I was simply pointing out that there will be some women inclined to vote for McCain because Palin is a woman.  I continue to marvel why this issue (and the other 'black/Obama' issue) is so difficult to understand??

The point itself is not difficult to understand. Why you keep raising it, and why it's relevant to--well, anything--is. Yes, interest groups and identity politics play a part in candidate preference. Race and gender are only two of those categories, though. Religion (Romney, a Mormon, won the Utah primaries overwhelmingly, but was viewed with suspicion elsewhere), class/education, age, regional identity etc. are all factors that are going to have significant effect as well.

So yes, people are more likely to vote for candidates that they identify with, whom they see as representing the ideals they value, and whom they like. So?

Quote

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 16:24:07OK, just a little bit of opinion/discussion here at the end: Jed Bartlett would not be a great, or even good president in reality.

Dude seriously?? If you really thought I was serious about that I would point you to this...

For a lot of people, Jed Bartlet was their ideal fantasy president. There were even campaign buttons that were pretty popular in, IIRC, 2000. If you were joking, good for you, but I don't think it was foolish of me to take you seriously.

QuoteNot being confrontational ... but you calling any of us partaking in this thread "stupid", "wrong", and/or "ignorant" goes back to the point I made in my post:

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sun 26/10/2008 16:07:12This little debate we're having in this thread, ironically, symbolizes to me the very thing I find wrong with the political system in the U.S.  Each side is so convinced they're right (and that the other side is 'less intelligent' or not 'in the know' just because their view is in stark opposition) that it will just perpetually go back and forth with neither side winning or losing (though each side will think they're 'winning').  It's the nature of politics I suppose.

... but this will just go on and on and on and on ...

More of the same I suppose.

I have a lot of respect for both sides, and though I personally favor the Democrats on most issues, I don't deny that there is merit to a lot of Republican arguments. There are also several areas of policy where I think both major parties are off-base. (Though I have yet to hear of any fringe candidates that are any better.) I also think that if your views genuinely are far outside of the mainstream, like for example ProgZ's seem to be, there's nothing wrong with rejecting both candidates. Given an electoral system based on first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all, rather than proportional representation, you're probably stuck with a two-party system forever, but consensus can be shifted over time.

There hasn't been any real policy debate in this thread, so my accusation of ignorance and stupidity obviously has nothing to do with party preference. I'll refrain from naming specific posters who have lowered the level of factuality and reason in the thread; I think the record speaks for itself.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 18:54:04Maybe so. That's the system you have, though, and even with that small complication it does allow the American people to elect their head of state. As for the popular vote, it's been proven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem) that there is no voting system that is completely fair and always comes to the decision favored by most people. So from that point of view, a single round, single-vote popular ballot is just as arbitrary as any other system.

While some people might accept something simply because it's 'what they have' I am not among that group.  That's one of the things I actually like about the system.  I don't have to go along with it because it's all there is.  If some people want to take what they're offered because there's nothing else (even if they disagree with it) that's their mistake.  I won't join that herd of sheep.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 18:54:04Anyway, I was responding to your claim that the Electoral College would pick McCain for President regardless of the election result. That's nonsense.

I do not think that's nonsense but, as I already stated, it's a difference of opinion that will just go on and on.  It's your choice to have faith in the electoral college.  I wasn't trying to persuade your (or anybody's) opinion, I was just expressing mine.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 18:54:04The point itself is not difficult to understand. Why you keep raising it, and why it's relevant to--well, anything--is.

I'm actually not the one that keeps bringing it back up.

It was relevant to my original point.  All the times it's been brought back up (out of some odd inability to grasp the concept) were, I agree, rather irrelevant.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 18:54:04For a lot of people, Jed Bartlet was their ideal fantasy president. There were even campaign buttons that were pretty popular in, IIRC, 2000. If you were joking, good for you, but I don't think it was foolish of me to take you seriously.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 18:54:04I'll refrain from naming specific posters who have lowered the level of factuality and reason in the thread; I think the record speaks for itself.

I would wager that were you to name those posters you'd find that they feel your opinions and statements fall into the very category you lumped them into.  This is just a hunch of course :)

Politics is politics.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 27/10/2008 19:32:41
While some people might accept something simply because it's 'what they have' I am not among that group.  That's one of the things I actually like about the system.  I don't have to go along with it because it's all there is.  If some people want to take what they're offered because there's nothing else (even if they disagree with it) that's their mistake.  I won't join that herd of sheep.

Ah! Lamenting the tenor of political discourse in one post, then calling those who disagree with you "sheep" who "accept something simply because it's what they have" the next. I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning! Smells like... hypocrisy.

You know, I have no problem with efforts to change the presidential electoral system to a direct popular vote. Good luck to you! Meanwhile, this is the system by which the president is elected for now. It may not be perfect, but it doesn't invalidate the whole concept of a general election either, as you implied. ("If this is how it's gonna be they need to change it from, 'by the people' to, 'by [a very small group of] the people'")

Quote

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 18:54:04Anyway, I was responding to your claim that the Electoral College would pick McCain for President regardless of the election result. That's nonsense.

I do not think that's nonsense but, as I already stated, it's a difference of opinion that will just go on and on.  It's your choice to have faith in the electoral college.  I wasn't trying to persuade your (or anybody's) opinion, I was just expressing mine.

It's not a matter of faith (I don't hold the presidential electors in particularly high regard), it's a matter of being realistic. Do you really think that a bunch of Democratic hacks, appointed by the Democratic party specifically because of their loyalty to their own side, after a long campaign of fighting for their guy, after the people's votes have been counted, after Obama has been declared the winner, and McCain has conceded, are suddenly going to decide not to vote for their own candidate, but instead for the candidate of the other party? Even though that's guaranteed to infuriate the party (and is a misdemeanor in 21 states), cause a constitutional crisis that would make Florida 2000 look like pretzelgate, instantly end their own careers, make them infamous throughout the country, and probably lead to massive rioting nationwide?

The popular vote is one week from tomorrow. As it looks now, Obama is going to win by every available measure. So we'll see if your prediction is correct. (Though we won't know until early January, when the Electoral College vote is counted.) Unless Obama in the intervening weeks goes on Meet the Press to talk about his enthusiasm for raping babies, what you propose is simply not going to happen.

QuoteI would wager that were you to name those posters you'd find that they feel your opinions and statements fall into the very category you lumped them into.  This is just a hunch of course :)

Somehow, that doesn't particularly bother me. I feel pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of the American political system and current political realities.

Hello everyone as you may know recent events have left me with no Internet access for a long time. I thought now would be the prime time to talk about politics I believe Obama will become the next president. The Americans do not pick their leaders like we do here. To them it is just another Television commercial, who looks the best, who has the nicest skin. Much like your Ronald Reagan I think he will be mostly the same to your Ronald McDonald. Capitalist pigs! >:(

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 22:08:51Ah! Lamenting the tenor of political discourse in one post, then calling those who disagree with you "sheep" who "accept something simply because it's what they have" the next. I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning! Smells like... hypocrisy.

I didn't call those that disagree with me sheep.  I called those who go ahead with the current system because "that's the way it is" even though they disagree with it, sheep.  Quite a difference actually.

What smells like hypocrisy to you smells like Sheep to me.  Potato potatoe. 

It's not hypocritical just because you think it is.

Just differing points of view.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 22:08:51You know, I have no problem with efforts to change the presidential electoral system to a direct popular vote. Good luck to you! Meanwhile, this is the system by which the president is elected for now. It may not be perfect, but it doesn't invalidate the whole concept of a general election either, as you implied. ("If this is how it's gonna be they need to change it from, 'by the people' to, 'by [a very small group of] the people'")

Nor does it invalidate my belief in not going along with something simply because, "that's the way it is".

Differing points of view.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 22:08:51I feel pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of the American political system and current political realities.

I'd wager those you're not mentioning feel the same way about their own knowledge and understanding.

Differing points of views.

This is same kind of debate we get when the topic of religion comes up.  Both sides are so convinced they're right (and that the other side are wrong, ignorant and stupid) that it continues in perpetuity.

I get a kick out of it.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 27/10/2008 23:12:43
I didn't call those that disagree with me sheep.  I called those who go ahead with the current system because "that's the way it is" even though they disagree with it, sheep.  Quite a difference actually.

Wow, I guess I didn't realize how actively involved you've been in efforts to reform the Electoral system. My mistake.

Quote

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 27/10/2008 22:08:51I feel pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of the American political system and current political realities.

I'd wager those you're not mentioning feel the same way about their own knowledge and understanding.

Differing points of views.

This is same kind of debate we get when the topic of religion comes up.  Both sides are so convinced they're right (and that the other side are wrong, ignorant and stupid) that it continues in perpetuity.

I get a kick out of it.

Let's not pretend that everyone is equally well-informed and reflected about politics and the political system. This is not a completely subjective topic where all opinions are equally valid; it's one where facts, understanding and reasoning matter.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 00:49:51Wow, I guess I didn't realize how actively involved you've been in efforts to reform the Electoral system. My mistake.

I don't see how me thinking 'sheep' of people (for the reasons I've [re]stated several times) gets translated into me being actively involved in the [much needed] reformation of the electoral system.  Aside from that, I don't know how somebody on these boards (who has zero idea of my day-to-day) would have any idea what I'm involved with as far as my political views go (without me telling, which I haven't).

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 00:49:51Let's not pretend that everyone is equally well-informed and reflected about politics and the political system. This is not a completely subjective topic where all opinions are equally valid; it's one where facts, understanding and reasoning matter.

I wasn't pretending anything. 

I was pointing out that the opposition to what you're saying would [likely] say the exact same thing(s) you're saying.  They will feel they are very well read and knowledgeable on the subject.  I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm just saying that one point of view, no matter how well researched (or thought researched) doesn't mean it's better (more correct) than another person's.

But anyway ... We've gotten off the subject of the thread and I have no desire to keep repeating myself.

I'm an intelligent and conscientious non-voter...I consider it to be a totally masturbatory activity.  If people studied their own primate biological and sociological imperatives more, they'd understand that we just keep putting alpha males in power because that's what primate packs have always done.  We don't believe things can run without a big monkey at the top.  And voting for a President is such a backwards idea anyways...the people need to change first, consciously, and then the leaders will follow, not the other way around.

That being said, if McCain wins, I'm leaving the country.  Only in the US could we have the first race simultaneously between a woman and a black man for president, and a white man with a token chick partner could still win.

That being said, I would still like to do some heavy make-outs with Palin.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 28/10/2008 02:39:07

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 00:49:51Wow, I guess I didn't realize how actively involved you've been in efforts to reform the Electoral system. My mistake.

I don't see how me thinking 'sheep' of people (for the reasons I've [re]stated several times) gets translated into me being actively involved in the [much needed] reformation of the electoral system.  Aside from that, I don't know how somebody on these boards (who has zero idea of my day-to-day) would have any idea what I'm involved with as far as my political views go (without me telling, which I haven't).

Look buddy, I think you've kind of argued yourself into a corner here. If you're so opposed to the status quo and the current electoral system, but you don't do anything about it (and no, not voting is not "doing something") other than complain on the Internet, aren't you exactly the kind of sheep who "goes along with it because it's all there is"?

Let's leave it, shall we? My hope of not getting dragged into (stupid, stupid) discussions hasn't worked out so well so far.

QuoteI wasn't pretending anything. 

I was pointing out that the opposition to what you're saying would [likely] say the exact same thing(s) you're saying.  They will feel they are very well read and knowledgeable on the subject.  I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm just saying that one point of view, no matter how well researched (or thought researched) doesn't mean it's better (more correct) than another person's.

Well, grasp of facts can actually be objectively verified, and poor understanding of those facts typically soon reveals itself when things don't work out as predicted. There's been plenty of predictions made in this thread. We'll see.

Quote from: Strange Visitor on Tue 28/10/2008 02:45:09
I'm an intelligent and conscientious non-voter...I consider it to be a totally masturbatory activity.

That being said, if McCain wins, I'm leaving the country.

Hey, I know one way you can help to make sure that doesn't happen. VOTE!

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 04:24:17Look buddy, I think you've kind of argued yourself into a corner here.  If you're so opposed to the status quo and the current electoral system, but you don't do anything about it (and no, not voting is not "doing something") other than complain on the Internet, aren't you exactly the kind of sheep who "goes along with it because it's all there is"?

As I stated in my last post (and must repeat again); you have no way to know what (if anything) I'm doing about it.

If you want to [try to] debunk my opinion by using a demeaning tone and condescending claims that I'm doing nothing but complaining on the internet by all means go ahead.  I am neither complaining, nor doing nothing about the situation.

If I express my opinion to an audience on the internet and even just one person out of one thousand sees my point, then that's doing something.

If a person feels that a certain system is corrupt, and that contributing a vote to that system is "wrong", then the act of not voting is doing something.

This does not make me a sheep.

I think it is not I that has argued himself into a corner.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 04:24:17Well, grasp of facts can actually be objectively verified, and poor understanding of those facts typically soon reveals itself when things don't work out as predicted. There's been plenty of predictions made in this thread. We'll see.

And you arbitrarily determine that your grasp of the "facts" is correct and others are wrong?

That's the very way of thinking that has led to the problems as I see it.

Perhaps you should run for public office!

I may be wrong but I believe that one of the original reasons for creating the electoral college was so that individual states could maintain their power by voting as a block.   

For those not familiar with the US system:

The number of representatives in congress for each state is determined by that state's population.   Each state gets two senators regardless of the population.   This was done so that small and/or sparsely populated states would have some say so in the political process.   

They used the same formula to determine the number of electoral votes delegated to each state.   From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg) ... 

"Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. ...

Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. ..."

For me it seems to be a sane system.  It doesn't bother me that occasionally there is a difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote.   It's only happened a couple of times in 250 years and in each instance they were very close elections.   I think it's good that small states are guaranteed a voice.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 28/10/2008 06:15:32
As I stated in my last post (and must repeat again); you have no way to know what (if anything) I'm doing about it.

If you want to [try to] debunk my opinion by using a demeaning tone and condescending claims that I'm doing nothing but complaining on the internet by all means go ahead.  I am neither complaining, nor doing nothing about the situation.

Nice. You call people sheep, I simply point out that by your own standards you're probably one of those sheep, and I'm the one with the demeaning tone?

QuoteIf I express my opinion to an audience on the internet and even just one person out of one thousand sees my point, then that's doing something.

If a person feels that a certain system is corrupt, and that contributing a vote to that system is "wrong", then the act of not voting is doing something.

This does not make me a sheep.

I think it is not I that has argued himself into a corner.

So when you wrote, "That's one of the things I actually like about the system.  I don't have to go along with it because it's all there is," you were trying to express the nobility of complaining on the Internet rather than getting involved and trying to change the things you don't like about the democratic system through the system itself?

And I guess that would mean the "sheep" that you attack are those who don't like the current system, but never complain about it or give any sign of not liking it. In other words, they are completely imaginary people that you made up in your head.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 04:24:17And you arbitrarily determine that your grasp of the "facts" is correct and others are wrong?

Many errors of fact have already been corrected in this thread. If anyone wants to dispute these corrections (ones like "Obama is NOT a muslim" or "Democrats were NOT ahead in the polls before the last two elections"), go right ahead. I'll let others judge who has the correct grasp of the facts.

Snarky, my friend, I want you to take this in the "good" side, so, here it goes:

You "project" too much. Darth has expressed some opinions many people has and you are twisting his words in a way that, reading what you say of him, might take to think that you are debating against one of those born-in-the bayou-no-teeth-Southern-flag-sticker-in-the-van idiot. Relax mate... You don' t know what kind of person he is, you are being quite unfair.

Look, I am the first in the line when it' s necessary to beat some idiots, I like it, it's my favourite sport, (^_^) but in this case the tone is not justified at all... Hope you take my advice in the good sense.

Actually, to be fair to Snarky, every post that Darth has made in this thread makes himself look a numpty. He may well be a nice guy but just not very good at expressing his political opinion.

I haven' t read hos posts carefully... I read something about a "negative Bradley effect", it' s something I never had in mind before he mentioned,but they I browsed and, apparently, some political analists agree with him, so, his idea "might" not be so crazy. Note that I don' t have an opinion about that, actually, I give a shit about this future US elections, but I keep thinking that if Darth' s ideas are shared by political analists it might not be so looney.

I didn' t read anything else, I try to avoid this political threads since I noted that here everything but showing total devotion to liberalism is seen as negative in this forums... (I.E. "-All politicias are bad-Oh, yeah, that's allways true except now, with Obama, he has so good maners, he is so polite, handsome and coooooool!!!")

Please  :P

I mean, there are two or three members who have avatars of the Butcher of the Cabaña, and nobody complains, so...  :)

Quote from: RickJ on Tue 28/10/2008 06:27:43
I may be wrong but I believe that one of the original reasons for creating the electoral college was so that individual states could maintain their power by voting as a block.   

For those not familiar with the US system:

The number of representatives in congress for each state is determined by that state's population.   Each state gets two senators regardless of the population.   This was done so that small and/or sparsely populated states would have some say so in the political process.   

They used the same formula to determine the number of electoral votes delegated to each state.   From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg) ... 

"Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. ...

Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. ..."

For me it seems to be a sane system.  It doesn't bother me that occasionally there is a difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote.   It's only happened a couple of times in 250 years and in each instance they were very close elections.   I think it's good that small states are guaranteed a voice.

The electoral college system seems a bit sane to me in the way that it does decrease the impact of votes in densely populated states and increase the impact of votes in rural areas. (this is probably a big reason the republican party is still around, since a lot of densely populated areas and big cities traditionally vote blue)

What bugs me personally about the system is the "winner-takes-all"-rule that's enforced in every state but two. If you're a republican in Massachusetts and you vote red (who thought up those colors?), your vote automatically goes to the democrats anyway. Likewise, in a red state, it doesn't matter whether 49% or 1% votes blue...the effect is that the state's electors vote 100% red. This has a couple of questionable effects in practice:

- Less people will be interested to look into the candidates' political program, since they might feel their vote won't count towards the final result anyhow.

- Hence, less people vote.

- The "winner-takes-all"-rule is basically "all or nothing", meaning it strongly favors 2-party systems. It's impossible for additional parties to have any impact on the final result.

2-party systems, in my own opinion, result in turn in an unhealthy political climate.

- People will often vote against the candidate they don't want in office, rather than for the candidate they do want in the big chair.

- Since there's only one opponent, the political climate is more vulnerable to becoming shallow...instead of going out of their way to increase public awareness of their political programs, candidates instead go out of their way to assassinate the only other competitor's character and sling mud...meaning whoever gets to be the winner gets to govern a nation that's more divided than before. And hey, what's more important to the world? Your own economic vision that might affect global economy or the fact your opponent smoked joints as a teenager?

- Style over substance.

- The less parties, the easier it gets for big corporations to buy political support.



I'm not sure why most states don't simply distribute the electors according to the local voting results, rather than make the entire state support one particular candidate, but since both mainstream political parties benefit from the status quo, I don't see the system changing anytime soon.

(http://www.agdiforums.com/forum/images/avatars/moodpics/Nashum.jpg)

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 12:22:36Nice. You call people sheep, I simply point out that by your own standards you're probably one of those sheep, and I'm the one with the demeaning tone?

Yes.

And you didn't simply point out anything.  You made a weak argument which failed to turn my comment around on me.

If you think I'm a sheep for following my own path and believing in what I believe in, so be it if that actually makes sense to you.  To try and somehow connect my 'not doing what I say I won't do because those that do are sheep' to me 'being one of those sheep' ... well ... that just doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 12:22:36So when you wrote, "That's one of the things I actually like about the system.  I don't have to go along with it because it's all there is," you were trying to express the nobility of complaining on the Internet rather than getting involved and trying to change the things you don't like about the democratic system through the system itself?

It wasn't complaining.

You keep claiming to know what actions I'm taking in my personal life when you do not posses this information.  When you know nothing about a person's day-to-day life you really shouldn't make statements like that.

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 28/10/2008 12:22:36In other words, they are completely imaginary people that you made up in your head.

So not only do you know what I do in my day-to-day life, you also dictate my beliefs?  Interesting.

I'm done discussing this off-topicness.  You proved my point quite nicely about politics, so thank you.

Back on topic...

RickJ - thanks for that information.  I had researched the institution before (not like I did a book report on it or anything just some Google and Wikipedia) but it's nice to get some new information about it.  I always admire your posts as they come with good information!

It was, to my understanding (and I could well be wrong), that the electoral college was put in place to allow smaller, less populated, states of the union an equal 'voice' in the voting process.  While at the same time being used as a 'safety measure' because the founding fathers didn't trust the population to elect their president.  Not just that they would make bad decisions but also that they could be coerced into voting a tyrant into power which, given the fact that they'd just fought an incredibly costly war in the effort to over-throw a tyrant, makes perfect sense.

I feel that in this day and age, with the proliferation of mass media, it's reached a point where we can (and should) tally the popular vote and base the presidency off of that.  I see the electoral college as antiquated and no longer needed.  It's a different world than it was when the electoral college was instituted.  Perhaps back then (I can't speak for how others feel/felt) the citizenry were content with a select group of people making the decisions for them.  I am not happy with such a system.

I know that it's extremely unlikely the EC will be 'done away' with anytime soon.  It would require an amendment to the constitution (3/4 of the states must agree) and the smaller states (that benefit from the system) aren't likely to vote for it.   I just don't feel that is a good enough reason for me to like it :)

TV spots are smearing Obama. McCain and Palin are fireing up the crowd. McCain supporters say/yell stupid things. Joe the plummer doesn't know shit. Neo nazis planned to kill Obama. A McCain supporter claimed she was stabbed in the cheek by a black man but it turns out she was lying.
It all back fires into McCain face. Many voters feel McCain = ignorance & racism. People don't want to be associated with that so they say that they'll vote Obama. But I do think that they'll pull through and still vote for Obama even with the curtain of the voting booth closed.

Skin color-wise, Obama is as FOX puts it best "just a half-rican". Shoul'n't that appeal to both black AND white america? Maybe that's too naive.

I'm just a little scared that the US may not be ready for a black president (whatever his precentage of "black blood" - which is a silly concept by itself imho; we've all got colour: some darker, some lighter - that should not make a difference).
And I wouldn't be at all surprised (very sad and disappointed, but not surprised) that if Barack Obama becomes the new president, he'll be assassinated within a year... :(

That stupid nazi (Reluctant?) has put all that fear in the body, I am afraid...

Quote from: RickJ on Tue 28/10/2008 06:27:43
I may be wrong but I believe that one of the original reasons for creating the electoral college was so that individual states could maintain their power by voting as a block.   

I still don't understand why this is a good thing. Why not just have a 1 person - 1 vote system, where all the votes are counted up nationwide and then whoever gets the most wins? Surely that would be the fairest way to run the Presidential election?

Having a block-vote system makes sense when you're electing a local representative for the Senate or whatever, where each state has to choose somebody to represent it in government (and this person comes from whichever party gets the most votes in the state) -- but when a national President is being elected, why add all the complications?

Quote2-party systems, in my own opinion, result in turn in an unhealthy political climate.

The advantages of 2-party systems though are that most of the time there is at least a clear winner one way or the other, and the winning party can get on with the job of government.

In some countries that have multi-party systems, they seem to have to have elections every 6 months after the coalition partners break up with each other and nobody has enough power to get anything done -- which can't be a good thing for the country or the economy.

QuoteBut I wouldn't be a all surprised (very sad and disappointed, but not surprised) that if Barack Obama becomes the new president he'll be assassinated within a year...

Well, somehow George W has managed to survive 8 years assassination-free, and if he can do it, anyone can!

QuoteBut I wouldn't be at all surprised (very sad and disappointed, but not surprised) that if Barack Obama becomes the new president, he'll be assassinated within a year...

As would be assassinated anyone who has power and will to crusade against CEOs and oil import, white or black, beggar or president. You can checkmate, but never capture the king.

In this world, kings do not reside in White House or Kremlin.
I think that they reside in banks and oil companies. Drug and weapon factories.

Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 28/10/2008 15:53:54Why not just have a 1 person - 1 vote system, where all the votes are counted up nationwide and then whoever gets the most wins? Surely that would be the fairest way to run the Presidential election?

My sentiments exactly.

I believe the counter-argument to this is that such a system is too fallible to be effective and/or reliable.

However, I like to think that if we had the technology to put man on the moon 40 years ago we can find an effective way to make such a voting system a reality today.

Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 28/10/2008 15:53:54Well, somehow George W has managed to survive 8 years assassination-free, and if he can do it, anyone can!

I heard a news blurb last night about the CIA uncovering an assassination plot on Obama.  They made it sound (in the blurb) like some huge far-reaching conspiracy. I did a little reading (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27416974/) on the story and it sounds like it wasn't quite as menacing as the media made it out to be (big surprise) just a couple of skin-heads talking shit; but still, it appears to be credible.

I'm sure Obama expected things like this to come up.  I will give him credit for going forward with his campaign knowing it might put his life at risk (though I suppose that's a reality for any presidential candidate).

From the article Darth linked to:

QuoteIt was to end, authorities said, with the two suspects â€" dressed in white tuxedos and top hats â€" blasting guns from the windows of a speeding vehicle aimed at Obama.

Just... wow.

Quote
RickJ - thanks for that information.  I had researched the institution before (not like I did a book report on it or anything just some Google and Wikipedia) but it's nice to get some new information about it.  I always admire your posts as they come with good information!

Darth - Although you know what you are talking about, I think there are "some people" ;) from other countries listening to this conversation that may not.  I posted the explanation for the benefit of those less informed so that they could better appreciate what is being said on both sides.

I believe you are also correct about the fear of the general population going ape-shit and selling out their hard won freedoms over a chrismatic dictator type person.  And yes it can happen even in modern times; just look at what's going on in Venezuela and Bolivia.   

Quote
Having a block-vote system makes sense when you're electing a local representative for the Senate or whatever, where each state has to choose somebody to represent it in government (and this person comes from whichever party gets the most votes in the state) -- but when a national President is being elected, why add all the complications?

There is noting in the constitution or in federal law requiring that states vote in a block.  This is decided by each state individually, and there are a number of states that do in fact proportionally select their electors according to the popular vote.  So in these states if Obamma wins 52% of the popular vote and McCain gets 48% then 52% of the electors are selected from the democrat (obama0 party and 48% from the republican party (mccain).

The reason some states vote as a block is that they believe that doing so will give them a stronger voice, not only in the election, but also in political process before and after elections.

You have to remember in the US sovereignty lies with the people first.  They delegate some of their power to the state in which they reside to govern.   The individual states in turn delegate some of their power to the federal government.   I think in most other countries it's the other way around, where the King/Queen are the sovereigns and delegate some of their [power to a Parliament who in turn delegate some powers to the people.

In the end both systems can (but not necessarily) produce similar results but the journey can be quite different.

Quote
In some countries that have multi-party systems, they seem to have to have elections every 6 months after the coalition partners break up with each other and nobody has enough power to get anything done -- which can't be a good thing for the country or the economy.

Hehe, I on this point.   Just to clarify though.  There are no laws codifying or requiring a two party system in the US.  It has just worked out that way.   There are in fact other political parties in the US who routinely run presidential candidates, such as the  Libertarian party, The Green party and the one created by Ross Perot in 92.  This is not to say that the two parties in power don't do everything they can to maintain the status quo.   

Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 28/10/2008 15:53:54

QuoteBut I wouldn't be a all surprised (very sad and disappointed, but not surprised) that if Barack Obama becomes the new president he'll be assassinated within a year...

Well, somehow George W has managed to survive 8 years assassination-free, and if he can do it, anyone can!

Well, that's because Bush went for the more extreme running mate, which is a pretty consistent tactic in American elections... there's a name for it, but I forget how it works. Basically, nobody's going to assassinate Bush because then Cheney will president. McCain's doing the same thing.

My predictions are that the Bradley effect won't have a big influence and that Obama will win. I would hope that this will mean that overall discourse in the States will shift to the left, but I predict an awful lot of acrimony before that happens, and if the White House returns to the Republicans after Obama leaves, it won't happen at all. That said, I'll call it right now: Obama is the next president of the United States, and he'll have a pretty large mandate. He'll also have a lot of opposition in the House and Senate.

Quote from: Makeout Patrol on Wed 29/10/2008 04:46:23
Well, that's because Bush went for the more extreme running mate, which is a pretty consistent tactic in American elections... there's a name for it, but I forget how it works. Basically, nobody's going to assassinate Bush because then Cheney will president. McCain's doing the same thing.

Let us all pray for McCain's ongoing health if he does win...

QuoteI believe you are also correct about the fear of the general population going ape-shit and selling out their hard won freedoms over a chrismatic dictator type person.  And yes it can happen even in modern times; just look at what's going on in Venezuela and Bolivia.

Yeah, I too heard that one of the original thoughts behind the electoral college was the assumption that Joe-the-ignorant-redneck-farmer-from-Kentucky was too oblivious of national politics to make an informed choice about out-of-state candidates who hailed from the Boston or Florida area. Thus, the electoral college could make an "informed choice" on behalf of the voters. And seeing the motivations of some citizens for voting for or against a certain candidate are nothing short of shallow, I can't say I blame them. What I wonder is how the electoral college is meant to correct irresponsible decisions by the electorate. Check this link out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)

Not only do parties usually pick drones as their electors who are certain to vote the party line, no matter how irresponsible, but voting against the party line is also discouraged and in theory even punished. So does it really make a difference? Unless I'm missing something about the way the system works.

Quote
In some countries that have multi-party systems, they seem to have to have elections every 6 months after the coalition partners break up with each other and nobody has enough power to get anything done -- which can't be a good thing for the country or the economy.

Yeah, the coalition system is hardly perfect, although in the US, the results would be slightly less profound due to local (state) government being a lot more influental than some local province governments in other western countries. I agree elections for the US every 6 months would be a bad thing economically, seeing the crazy amounts of money that get poured into campaigns.

QuoteHehe, I on this point.   Just to clarify though.  There are no laws codifying or requiring a two party system in the US.  It has just worked out that way.   There are in fact other political parties in the US who routinely run presidential candidates, such as the  Libertarian party, The Green party and the one created by Ross Perot in 92.  This is not to say that the two parties in power don't do everything they can to maintain the status quo.   

True, although due to the voting-as-a-block deal, a lot of people who would have voted for a 3rd party still end up voting one of the two mainstream parties because if the only way to deny a candidate your vote is to make certain that candidate doesn't get the majority of the votes in a state. (See the "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"-line)

QuoteWell, that's because Bush went for the more extreme running mate, which is a pretty consistent tactic in American elections... there's a name for it, but I forget how it works. Basically, nobody's going to assassinate Bush because then Cheney will president. McCain's doing the same thing.

I'm not sure if that's the thought. There's been word that while Bush makes it to the headlines more often, Cheney has more political say behind the scenes. Ironically, shooting Cheney might have had more impact than shooting Bush. The only reason Palin seemed to be chosen was to bring "youth" to the team (unfortunately also debunking the "Obama is inexperienced"-talking point) and to appeal to the religious right wing part of the base, who weren't exactly charmed with McCain before. (and vice versa) I doubt she'd pick up many Hillary-voters due to her gender...her opinion that abortion isn't even justified in case of rape isn't something a lot of women, particularly Hillary voters, are gonna agree with.

QuoteI feel that in this day and age, with the proliferation of mass media, it's reached a point where we can (and should) tally the popular vote and base the presidency off of that.  I see the electoral college as antiquated and no longer needed.

I see the system as antiquated too, but I'm not sure if the proliferation of the mass media has made the popular vote any more reliable. With the mass media bombarding the public with all sorts of contradicting information, it's hard to see the forest for the trees and judge what's reliable and what's spin. I doubt those rabid McCain-supporting crowds had been this fired up if it hadn't been for the fearmongering, attack ads and pundits shouting all sorts of things. In the good ole' days, a significant part of the electorate was uninformed and now that same part is misinformed. That's progress for ya.

(http://www.agdiforums.com/forum/images/avatars/moodpics/Nashswt.jpg)

Quote from: Erpy on Wed 29/10/2008 10:02:20I see the system as antiquated too, but I'm not sure if the proliferation of the mass media has made the popular vote any more reliable. With the mass media bombarding the public with all sorts of contradicting information, it's hard to see the forest for the trees and judge what's reliable and what's spin. I doubt those rabid McCain-supporting crowds had been this fired up if it hadn't been for the fearmongering, attack ads and pundits shouting all sorts of things. In the good ole' days, a significant part of the electorate was uninformed and now that same part is misinformed. That's progress for ya.

It certainly is hard to tell the the 'good' from the 'bad' sometimes.  I saw one commercial bashing McCain's tax plan, and very next commercial talks about how McCain's tax plan will save the country.  It's all a matter of how each person sees it I suppose.  One side will see it one way, the other side sees it the opposite.

My basic thought on it was that 100 years ago if you took a picture of Bryan and one of Taft (the two candidates for president at the time) out to a bible-belt farmer in the mid west they'd have no idea who either man was.  Now-a-days if you go up to a bum on the street and show him a picture of McCain or Obama chances are they'd know who they were.  While they may not be very educated on the candidates (policies, beliefs, etc) they at least now who they are.  That's at least a little progress I suppose?

I think removal of the electoral college and letting the popular vote decide the president would completely change the face of presidential campaigns (for the better).  Sure it's possible it could backfire ... but the system as it is now gave us Bush for 8 years.  Could it really be any worse?? ;)

Yay, an internet argument!

We have elections tomorrow at my university where we'll vote for student representatives. I'm honestly voting for the hottest nominee just because she's hot, and I'm damn proud of it.

The thread has moved on to more productive discussion (and some actual sound, solid information for a change), so I don't mean to drag it back to this, just responding to Nacho.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 28/10/2008 13:12:58
Snarky, my friend, I want you to take this in the "good" side, so, here it goes:

You "project" too much. Darth has expressed some opinions many people has and you are twisting his words in a way that, reading what you say of him, might take to think that you are debating against one of those born-in-the bayou-no-teeth-Southern-flag-sticker-in-the-van idiot. Relax mate... You don' t know what kind of person he is, you are being quite unfair.

Look, I am the first in the line when it' s necessary to beat some idiots, I like it, it's my favourite sport, (^_^) but in this case the tone is not justified at all... Hope you take my advice in the good sense.

Right. I'm sure Darth isn't a bad guy, and I don't at all see him as any kind of neanderthal yokel. I guess what rubbed me the wrong way was that comment about "sheep", especially mixed in with all that pious "can't we all just get along" and "people need to respect other's viewpoints" stuff. People who hold opinions out of the mainstream have a tendency to get really self-righteous about their independent thinking and rugged individualism. The kind of Ayn Rand "heroic loner" bullshit. Maybe it's a defensive posture against the disapproval of the majority, I don't know. Anyway, I find it obnoxious and, unless backed by action, certainly unwarranted. And to not recognize it as exactly the kind of denigration of other people's thinking supposedly abhorred is, if not hypocritical, definitely oblivious.

Bah! Let us speak no more of it!

Quote from: Erpy on Wed 29/10/2008 10:02:20
Yeah, I too heard that one of the original thoughts behind the electoral college was the assumption that Joe-the-ignorant-redneck-farmer-from-Kentucky was too oblivious of national politics to make an informed choice about out-of-state candidates who hailed from the Boston or Florida area. Thus, the electoral college could make an "informed choice" on behalf of the voters.

I believe another factor was the logistical difficulty of running a nation-wide election in those days. In fact, many states did not choose their electoral college representatives by popular vote for at least the first 50 years of the republic.

Since the US was originally viewed more as a federation of states than a single nation, apportioning votes by states made a lot of sense. With the federal government taking an ever-more central role in US politics, setting more policies directly, there's certainly an argument to be made that the process is archaic.

I think a lot of people hesitate to mess with a system that is at the core of US democracy, and which has worked reasonably well for more than 200 years. Especially when the alternative isn't going produce a different election result unless the race is already very close. The benefit just isn't that great. The risks, on the other hand: If you start messing with the Constitution, you have to make damn sure that lobbyists and special interest groups don't bias the new rules in their favor. Also, the effect on political campaigning is unpredictable. Would it lead to more populism and demagoguery? Would it make it more palatable for politicians to go after minorities like Latinos if they didn't have to always worry about how that would play in Florida?

And of course, many states have a vested interest in the status quo, especially small swing states like New Hampshire, Nevada, or (somewhat bigger) Ohio, who get disproportionate attention under the current system.

Still, maybe the importance of following the popular vote (which I think is fetishized more than it deserves, but which strikes a lot of people as the only "fair" measure) outweighs these risks. There are ongoing efforts to implement a nationwide popular poll for president, and a number of states have adopted laws that will trigger if states making up a majority of the electoral vote join them, pledging to vote in accordance with the result of the popular vote. (This way you can achieve the same effect without changing the constitution, and without the consent of many states that would be opposed.) If you think it's an important issue, you can take active steps to support this effort, gathering signatures, writing to Congress, etc.

QuoteAnyway, I find it obnoxious and, unless backed by action, certainly unwarranted. And to not recognize it as exactly the kind of denigration of other people's thinking supposedly abhorred is, if not hypocritical, definitely oblivious.

I hope this isn't how you view my personal position on this matter, because I feel exactly as you do with regards to this.  I personally write senators and congressmen with my thoughts on issues (most recently the bailout fiasco) and let John Kyl know I wouldn't be endorsing his return to the Senate in spite of his sickly-sweet reply full of half-truths and poorly understood economic terms.  I'm not saying I'm some economy expert, mind, but I've studied it enough to know when someone's bullshitting to cover up a lack of knowledge, and boy was he on a roll!

At any rate, I fully agree with Snarky that if you want to affect change you need to get involved, Darth.  Stop thinking that your voice doesn't count and that doing nothing is better than trying and not being recognized, because if fewer people thought like you we wouldn't have such a dearth of voters today.  Writing your congressman and local senators about your views on key issues is one of the best ways to influence their actions. 

If you need an example of how important this process is, I'll give you one from personal experience:

During the bailout debates, I read about the package and decided for myself that it would do nothing to resolve the situation and wrote my local congressman Ed Pastor about it.  As it turns out, his office was literally swamped with similar letters and voice messages urging him not to vote yes on the bill, and in his reply to me he said the public outcry was staggering and that he could not in good conscience vote for the bill.  So did I help to influence him?  Yes and no.  He was already leery of it, but the sheer amount of public disapproval he was receiving in the form of letters and calls helped convince him that his position was defensible, and that's what it's all about.

Also, everyone knows politicians are more malleable during election season ^_^.

No, not at all. I get the impression that I probably disagree with you on the issues, but I respect that you take the consequences of your positions.

But ProgZmax there was still a bailout bill pressed through. Not even a congressman vote matters.

Well, it did fail on the first attempt, and had to be modified to get through Congress. Probably not to ProgZ's satisfaction, but a lot of economists thought the changes were an improvement.

No, I don't think the bill solved anything (some of the tacked-on conditions are even worse, and the bill went from 3 pages to something like 300 just to keep most of the senate from reading it all) and is just delaying an inevitable economic downturn.  As for it not having an effect, well as Snarky said, it did.  Ed Pastor along with other like-minded men and women overturned the bill in Congress, but then the Senate (in my opinion) ignored the voice of the people by not observing the ruling, altering the bill and voting on it again.  Kyl was one of the front-runners championing the bill in the Senate, which is why I mentioned him (and my unwillingness to support his future in politics).  Pessimists can still see this as a failure of the system and a reason for not doing anything, and that's their (or your) right.  I just don't see it that way.

To the topic's point...I confidently think the winner will be Obama. It's easy for me to say one day before voting, with polls that strongly favor Obama, however, I've strongly felt this election was in the bag after the third presidential debate.

I've drunk deep from the kool-aid and I strongly support Barack Obama as viable candidate for president. I admittedly stand firmly to the center left. I'm a sheep or a lemming, whichever animal analogy works better for you. I was never going to vote for McCain, regardless of his running mate. I'm completely and utterly biased, and I'm loving this election.

That said...I constantly read news, and educate myself in this election. I don't just listen to the "liberal" media, but I read conservative articles and listen to conservative radio.

Is it fair that we only get two parties? No. However, the Florida ballot has 13 candidates for president, so it's not exactly fair to say we only get two choices. It is fair to say that the Democrats and Republicans get 99.9% of the media coverage, though...and it's highly unlikely that a third party candidate will win until that changes. I don't necessarily disagree with having two major parties. Especially when you consider both parties platforms are general and bland enough to encompass opposing views within their own parties. However, if anyone is against the two party system, it means much more to vote for someone like Barr or Nader, than to not vote at all.

As to the discussion of the popular vote. I'm on the fence with this one. With the federal government having as much control as it does, I think it makes sense to go with the popular vote. However, if there ever is a successful push to put more power back into the states, than, I do feel the electoral college makes sense. Regardless of either one...the real gripe I have about voting is how difficult it is to vote. We live in the age of the internet, we have on-line banking. We have the ability to make a secure, easy-to-use, way of registering and voting for local, state, and federal elections all from home. The reason it hasn't been done is the disparity between registered republicans and democrats. Roughly 40% of voters are registered Democrat, 30% Republican, and 30% Independent. So from the start of the election, Democrats have about a 10% advantage from the start of an election. That said, many Independents tend to be on the moderate right side of the political spectrum. Which is why we see close races. As a person in the computer industry, I just feel it's sad that we haven't  taken a central effort to try and develop a on-line system for voting.

Back to this election. I think Obama has run on a more unifying message than I've seen from the other side (in this election). Could he be all hot air? Sure. Could he really have a liberal agenda? Probably, but as a liberal that doesn't scare me. The reason I'm mainly attracted to him as a candidate, though, is that he exudes intelligence. He seems to make decisions after taking into account the short run, the long run, and other outside factors. Will he prevent a crisis from happening? Maybe, but not all of them (I don't think anyone will do that). However, I feel that when one comes our way, he'll be better able manage how to get out of it. Will he strengthen our economy? I think so. I think one of his strengths will be his ability to choose good, smart people to help make decisions he might not have the knowledge to make. I think his campaign is an indication of the well run machine he would bring to the office.

I will say, that as far as elections go, this has been a tame election. John McCain has come off as negative, yes, but most of that is because he can't afford not to. There's evidence to support that negative ads are more prone to change minds than positive ads. With the difference in the campaign funds, it's only natural that the majority of his ads are negative, where Obama can afford to spend money on positive ads. To his credit, he has avoided Reverend Wright. And while the Ayers association doesn't resonate with me, I don't completely discount it. I just feel that John McCain has stronger associations (Keating Five, Gordon Libby, etc...).

Regardless of how you vote, make sure you're informed. I think everyone should vote. If not for president, than at least for some of the local and state issues that are in this ballot. Democrat, Republican, or Independent...we're all in this together, and we need to be able to disagree without villainizing each other.

-MillsJROSS

Nice perspective, Mills.

I would be all for online voting if you could solve two major problems:

1. How do you make sure that people are voting by their own free will, and not under duress?
2. It would make it easy to prove how you voted. That would make selling your vote a much more attractive offer.

(Though admittedly, with video cameras on cell phones, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to prove what you did in the voting booth, either.)

I don't really have a problem with a lack of online voting since you can elect to receive your ballot considerably early and either submit it by mail or just quickly drop it off at the voting center, which is what I was going to do until I messed mine up  :-\. 

The nice thing was I just went to my local church at 5:30 am, and after a short wait used my mail ballot as a reference and presto: vote!

The strange thing about this campaign is that the media have talked a lot about Obama, McCain and Palin.

But doesn't Obama have a vice-presidential partner too? If so, who is he/she? Why have they never been mentioned? Are they just incredibly dull so that the media doesn't have any scandals to report about them?

Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 04/11/2008 22:39:51
But doesn't Obama have a vice-presidential partner too? If so, who is he/she? Why have they never been mentioned? Are they just incredibly dull so that the media doesn't have any scandals to report about them?

Joe Biden. And Yes.

But then, next to a batshit-insane robo-MILF, most people seem dull.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 04/11/2008 22:48:52

Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 04/11/2008 22:39:51
But doesn't Obama have a vice-presidential partner too? If so, who is he/she? Why have they never been mentioned? Are they just incredibly dull so that the media doesn't have any scandals to report about them?

Joe Biden.

Yeah he's nobody....like a Joe-six-pack, if you will.

But he's been asked rediculous questions. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dthOFGAp2L0)

Yay! Election night! Go Obama!!

This is the most boring exciting thing I have ever watched.

And the horrible, looping, action movie style music they play on CNN while presenting the results is driving me nuts.

Edit: WTF? "CNN's Jessica Yellin via hologram" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg)? Since when does badly done bluescreen work paired with motion synced cameras constitute a hologram? I wonder how many millions they wasted on this embarrassing gimmick.

Edit 2: Obama is projected the winner! Excellent, the world isn't entirely going to hell in a handbasket after all. Now, bedtime.

The number of cock ups on the BBC one is amazing! The ITV coverage is crap, none of them know what they're saying. Watched some CNN coverage too. It's funny how out of touch the coverage seems too, when the BBC reporters interview an American and they don't have a clue what he's asking hehe. Anyway its good to see Obama win :)

Not exactly a landslide, but he won.

Maybe the rest of the world have respect for us again.

posting from my iPhone ... Just wanted to be the first to say I've never been so glad to be wrong (about McCain winning despite the popular vote)

If nothing else the rest of the world seems to be happy about it

I'm glad Obama won, but I don't know anything about American politics, so was never in a position to call myself a supporter.  The fact that he is the first black president of the US is great news for African-Americans, and indeed all of America (...and the world?).

But, as Barrack Obama was making his speech, it struck me as kind of sad that the black thing is still an issue in this "modern" world... To the dreamers amongst us, tonight's events might hopefully mark the beginning of the end of that particular issue, but it's still an issue and there is still a long long way to go and that really sucks.

By that logic, no matter how many landmarks are reached, it will never stop being an issue, because we will still all be congratulating ourselves on how forward thinking we are.

Don't be sad Stupot, it is a major landmark. It IS an issue, but it's a good issue, you're never going to convince 100% of voters not to be racist, but to convince enough of them to elect a Black President is a very good sign that opinion is changing. If we can't use measures such as this to gauge the general "racismometer" of the American Public, that what can we use? Or perhaps we just shouldn't talk about it, then it won't be an issue!

Yay for Obama!

Go home, ye nasty grand old hawks!

George W, we'll miss you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8pvU1iyT3c)

Ok, time for me to say something too. I've avoided stating an opinion here or anywhere about these elections. First of all, supporting any condidate would have had people either telling the elections going to be corrupted as people suggested, or that both are just as evil, they just bring it out in a different way. But I always had hope in me, hope for the possibility, that the yankees would go and vote for what's best for them. I'm not sure, but I suppose 60% of the electoral votes does tell you something.

Also, I'm fairly content, that the voting rates were higher than in a long time, with young people and ones with foreign background also voting. If that's true, I'd like to know the real rates, as I couldn't find them anywhere. They used to be under 50%, right? They said Obama was mostly voted by middle class and poorer people while McCain the other way around. If that's true, then you'll notice, that a lot of the people who before had just dwelled in their misery, claiming, that there's no way to make a difference, saw some hope in Obama and went there and voted, and actually did make a difference, one that we will analyze later in the following 4 years. As a supporter of collective democracy and participation this makes me really happy. And in that sense America had taken a step forward, and I'd love to see others going there too.

Some professor stated here, that Obama should recognise the possibility of being shot, as four other presidents have been before. I understand he's become a victom of an attempt of assassination twice befoe this year. I wouldn't wonder it myself, but I hope it won't come to that.

Medvedev didn't seem all that confident in his statement, where he accused the US for the recession and the warfare going on etc. He even refused to congratulate Obama, but I can well assume he's waited for the statemend until the end of Bush's episode to keep it safe.

Rather worryingly, Obama is the Page 3 Girl in the Sun today. Luckily he's fully clothed, but these are strange times indeed...

Darth, your claims about McCain winning were silly to begin with. ;)

But yeah, I'm extremely happy that Obama won. I shudder at the few people on my Facebook that wrote "This country's going to hell!"

Yeah, not bloody likely.

Quote from: TerranRich on Wed 05/11/2008 17:45:33Darth, your claims about McCain winning were silly to begin with. ;)

I do not think it was silly in the slightest and neither did most* of the other people I have discussed the matter with.

But hey ... to each their own :P

Whatever; if nothing else I'm enjoying seeing the positive reactions (in the news and even just around my office here) that his election has generated.

Anyway ... I'm going off to ride some dinosaurs with Jesus now.

* for clarification purposes, the term 'most', as used in that sentence, does not mean EVERYbody.

I didn't vote, but most people I know seem to be creaming their jeans over Obama, and it kind of creeps me out.

What if this guy turns out to be a fuck-up?

Nevertheless, let's see what he's got. He might be a great president. I just hate how I see people praising him so much when he's only been (EDIT:)elected for a day!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Obama... and I might or might not be in a year... You never really know until they've been in office for a while.

Sure, reality will set in before long when people realise that Obama isn't Jesus and can't work miracles.

But in a way, this isn't about whether Obama will make a good president or not -- for the moment at least it's about the fact that a black man has been able to become president, which in America seems to be quite a Big Thing.

When you have a situation where young black people turn to crime because they feel it's the only way to make a name for themselves because "the system" is geared against them, it's a message of hope and inspiration that actually, if you set your mind to it you can accomplish anything, no matter the colour of your skin. And so for now, that's really the main story here ... and in a way, it's more important to society than what Obama actually ends up doing or not doing.

Obama hasn't "just been president for a day" :) Still...

I think he will be president the 20th of January, no? Good look for him, if America goes Ok, the rest of the world goes also good...

Quote from: Nacho on Thu 06/11/2008 07:34:45
...if America goes Ok, the rest of the world goes also good...

Well... some of it.

Yeah, I agree... I was thinking a little bit in the Western countries when I said "The rest of the World"... A little bit shellfishy, my fault.  :)

Hello from Chicago, home of Barack Obama!  Was there at the celebration in Grant Park on Election Night, and it was such a joyful thing to see entire families and groups of friends of all races and colors and ethnic backgrounds celebrate together, hugging and dancing and taking pictures of each other.  What you saw on TV can't even begin to explain it.  Someone said it felt like we had just ousted a dictator.  We get so cynical at times we forget what pure joy can be like, especially after knowing how so many in the world have thought what jerks we Americans are. 

Obama as the Page 3 girl?  Have long said (and have been teased about a lot) that he's the sexiest man alive. Met him at a parade about five years ago and nearly melted.  Weird ears, but oh, man, the intensity is incredible.

Haven't always agreed with his votes as the Senator representing my state, Illinois, and am sure I'll disagree with him as president, but I can't imagine he'll get so insulated in his office that he'll be oblivious to critcism.

So I guess it's back to the real world of adventure gaming for me again.

Wow! In my skeptics e-mail list there is someone that is already bashing him! :D Soooo quick! The guy hasn't even started! Hahahaha!  ;D

But that makes me think... He has been so "messiahnised" that everything he does but being "perfect" could result into a big state of desillution... What is said in the US about that? Is it true that he approves death penalty and dissapproves homosexual marriage?

Quote from: freshpaint on Thu 06/11/2008 14:56:33
Obama as the Page 3 girl?  Have long said (and have been teased about a lot) that he's the sexiest man alive. Met him at a parade about five years ago and nearly melted.  Weird ears, but oh, man, the intensity is incredible.

Well, Schwarzenegger doesn't think so. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxSW9nK3kI8)

Man, he is talking the most incredible bullshit I could possibly imagine. After seeing this it's hard to believe that McCain was serious when he congratulated Obama for winning the election...

Hahaha, Schwarzenegger "fled from Europe", cause there "you can't fulfill your dreams". What a moron. I'm glad that he isn't european anymore though it's a pity that you have to deal with him now, especially the californians..


EDIT:

Nacho, as far as I know:

Unfortunately the first one: yes.
Fortunately the second one: No.

Quick reply! Thanks.  :)

EDIT: Well, as I assumed that "Obama" was going to be the topic in this email list, I must confess that I browsed for information better than blindly believing you, matti. (Guilty!) :D And you are not totally correct. Obama suport some kind of death penalties and dissaproves homosexual marriage (But is opposed also to a constitutional ban) apparently.

Actually, afaik I know you're wrong matti. Obama is against same sex marriage, but for civil unions.

At least that's what he said during the campaign.

Edit: Oops, didn't see Nachos post.

I'm against ANY kind of marriage <ggg>.

Obama is a democrate and therefor lets the states themselves figure it out. So no gay marriage in texas and no death penalty in new york.

Quote
Obama is a democrate and therefor lets the states themselves figure it out. So no gay marriage in texas and no death penalty in new york.

It's more complicated than that.

The democrat party supports bigger, more intrusive government in all areas.  An overwhelming majority of the US population prefer the traditional definition of marriage.  In fact this is true in just about every single state.  Even in California there was a law passed by voter initiative that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The republican party attempted (and I believe succeeded, but not sure) to do the same thing on a federal level.  There are many federal laws that refer specifically to marriage, spouse,  and married couple/individuals.  For example there are different tax rates depending if you are single or married, when a person dies their spouse is entitled to a portion of the deceased person's social security benefits, and etc.  There is also a "full faith and credit" provision in the constitution that says that the states have to honor each other's laws.  So for example one can obtain a drivers license from the state of New York and drive cross country to California with out having to have a drivers license from each and every state along the route.  So this would mean that the federal government wouldn't have to recognize gay marriage with regard to it's laws and that individual states wouldn't have to recognize gay marriages from other states.

The last really explains why this is being attempted on a state by state basis. What has been happening is that groups have been filing lawsuits in liberal/lef leaning states like California where they can find a sympathetic judge who will rule the status quo unconstitutional.      Then once it's legal in one state people can go there get married and then move to where ever they want thus circumventing the local laws.

QuoteThen once it's legal in one state people can go there get married and then move to where ever they want thus circumventing the local laws.

As you mentioned earlier in your post, RickJ, by the Constitution other states do not have to recognize the marriage if a majority of the voters voted against it (unless it's a federal mandate, which shouldn't ever happen really).  There is actually a long-standing law in Arizona (where I live) that recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and this voting period they tried to introduce a new law saying much the same thing (but with loopholes, and we won't even go into the duplicate-law cancellation issue).  I voted against it because there's already such a law and it's a waste of time and tax payer money to spend another second on it.  Also, democrats are as notorious as republicans for infringing on states' rights regarding lawmaking.  It's just another reason why many people are beginning to refer to them as republicrats, really.


Is anyone else as interested as I am about this planned 'private discussion' about the new currency in the US on November 15?  Anyone who has been paying attention has seen this coming for years because the bankers, and especially the Federal Reserve, do not want to relinquish their power over the currency by returning to the gold standard.  Their solution, therefore, will be to try and convince the public that unifying the currencies of America, Canada, and Mexico will save us, which is just hogwash if you read the specifics and pay attention to the relative value of these currencies.  This isn't conspiracy, it's happening right now and it's another step towards a completely unified world economy (which will gradually lead toward a single government).  If you are as opposed as I am to any further loss of national sovereignty then I suggest you start doing some research into the issue before the media engine begins tossing out sweet-sounding half-truths and scare tactics.  Note that it's not my intention to demonize the people behind this push; I'm sure many of them believe what they are doing is a great idea, but for someone like me who holds the Constitution and national sovereignty in high esteem it's a preposterous notion that, rather than fixing any of the problems in the system, will just create more regulation and problems.

If anyone would like to discuss this with me privately I'd be more than happy to share what I have read on the subject and point them to a couple of books.  Also, if you want to just argue/disagree with me that's fine too, as long as your mind isn't shut.

I am willing to bet $50 (or the equivalent sum in ameros) that there will be no discussion of a joint North American currency at G20 on November 15. I am also somewhat mystified by the idea that the only two options are (a) return to the gold standard, or (b) create a new currency.

What are your sources, ProgZ? Googling the topic real quick, everything I find indicates that there is no basis for these theories, and that no public official has ever expressed any ambitions in this direction. Besides, I don't know of any mainstream economic thinkers (the people who shape bankers' and Feds' thinking) who support the idea of a North American currency union. (Because of the huge differences between the three different economies, which would make it impossible to set one monetary policy that would make sense for all three.) If the claim is that they ("They" being the Fed, other bankers, and the media, apparently) are planning all of this in secret, how is that not a conspiracy theory?

A World Government? I don't see how that's a remotely realistic prospect within the foreseeable future. Look at what's happened in the EU: the desire by some Eurocrats for even just a federal European state has met with immense resistance (the proposed Constitution had to be watered down to essentially just a statement of existing facts, was still rejected by public referenda, was replaced by the even more anodyne Lisbon treaty, and still failed to be ratified by referendum in Ireland), attempts to harmonize foreign policy has been a dismal failure (even in cases of obvious common interest, as in relations with Russia), and the EU is still very much a collection of separate states pursuing their individual national interests. And that's within a region that is incredibly homogeneous (politically, culturally, economically) relative to the rest of the world. I can't even imagine what a government that would attempt to rule both Belgium and Afghanistan, Haiti and China, Algeria and Argentina would look like.

I just don't find either the evidence or the reasoning at all convincing.

Maybe it' s a coincidence, but I in some forums the other day they were discussing that the "sollution" for some countries (USA, specifically) was to come back to the gold pattern and take some european countries (Greece, Belgium, Portugal, Spain and Italy, I think) out of Euro.  :) I think that the "November 15th" thingie is an internet urban legend, but sounds interesting... As Snarky said, Prog, sources, please?

.

Marriage

Quote
As you mentioned earlier in your post, RickJ, by the Constitution other states do not have to recognize the marriage if a ...

ProgZ thanks the additional info.  We do have a point of confusion or disagreement though between us.  I don't really want to start a long debate but would like to comment for the benefit of our non-US friends who may be listening.  The US  constitution which says that states do have to honor each others laws, which would also include marriage.

Wiki - Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause)Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. ...

So normally a marriage executed in one state would be valid in every other state.  However, a federallaw was passed in 1996 called the Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) that says:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Quite frankly, if not for AIDS and employer paid health benefits I don't think anyone would be interested in this at all.  Like the old cliche says "just follow the money".

Currency
I wasn't aware of this thanks for bringing it to my attention.   I don't think anyone in the US would like this at all nor do I think it would be all that popular in Mexico and Canada either.  Just look at how resistant people are to using dollar coins.  I also hold the Constitution and national sovereignty in high esteem and believe it's important to do so.

Quote
A World Government? I don't see how that's a remotely realistic prospect within the foreseeable future. Look at what's happened in the EU: the desire by some Eurocrats for even just a federal European state has met with immense resistance ...

In the US we have the benefit of 50 laboratories (i.e. states) that are all competing with each other and experimenting with slightly different laws and policies.  If one state comes up with a great idea that in fact works and is of benefit then other states soon adopt similar laws or policies.   The federal government is supposed to be limited in it's authority.  Sovereignty lies with the people first, then to individual states, and then to the federal government.  Over time the federal government has usurped more and more power and is what ProgZ alludes to when he mentions "States rights"

IMHO, most people who have a leftist or socialist point of view would rather have a strong central government  or "one big government"  because nearly all such policies require that everyone be forced to participate.  It's usually claimed that everyone has to participate or else it won't work.  I think these kinds of things don't work regardless of participation and that it's just a means of eliminating alternative that are potentially more successful.   If the ex Soviet Union encompassed the entire world how would the people have known that they were poor and that their system was an embarrassing failure?   

I am not that knowledgeable about the EU but I do have a couple observations from the point of view of an outsider.   Political labels and categories do not translate well from country to country.   From what I read about the first vote on the EU constitution the French rejected because it wasn't socialist enough and the British rejected it because it was to socialist.  I am sure it was more complex than this but it does illustrate the problems faced by the EU movement.  Also I believe in practice the EU federal system is more top down than the US federal system. 

Quote from: Pumaman on Thu 06/11/2008 00:13:17
Sure, reality will set in before long when people realise that Obama isn't Jesus and can't work miracles.

And also before people realize that Obama isn't the Antichrist either (and I'm not speaking metaphorically).

Quote from: RickJ on Sat 08/11/2008 15:14:49
I wasn't aware of this thanks for bringing it to my attention.   I don't think anyone in the US would like this at all nor do I think it would be all that popular in Mexico and Canada either.  Just look at how resistant people are to using dollar coins.  I also hold the Constitution and national sovereignty in high esteem and believe it's important to do so.

I don't see any problems with a unified currency really, I think the nationalists would only really be upset at the fact that it is not something unique to the country, rather than something difficult to integrate in the economies of three different countries. Would not prices reflect the local resources and standard of living anyways?

The Euro has a specific exchange value outside of the countries that use it, but from experience I can say as with everything else the value is not the same from region or country to another, a nice dinner out in France will probably cost more than a nice dinner out in Greece, mostly to due with cuisine differences as well as the living costs, etc. Same as how $20 will not go as far in a Manhattan bar as it will in a bar in Indianapolis.

Additionally, the Ameros could be rather spiffy looking  :P



While I'm all for state and local sovereignty, the idea of national sovereignty is something that really chaps my ass. I don't believe it means a hell of a lot in a country of 300 million  (and 52/48 splits are fairly common results) as it does in say Norway with a population of 4 1/2 million.

I live in Michigan, which has a population of around 10 million, but state proposals and elections and what have you still feel better and more relevant than national ones. It is curious that my vote in national elections is cosmically tied to those in California, a state I have never been to nor do I personally know anyone that lives there. The passage of a local or state law in California means exactly the same to me as one passed in Ontario, Canada. Still, I have to live with choices made by them and in every other state simply by a weak association. I would say that national sovereignty ranks rather low in my esteem.

ProgZmax: That whole North American unified currency thing is, and always has been, completely false. It was a rumor started long ago. There will be no "Amero", nor any other unified North American currency.

Quote from: PixelPerfect on Sat 08/11/2008 12:21:08

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 08/11/2008 03:11:23
I am willing to bet $50 (or the equivalent sum in ameros) that there will be no discussion of a joint North American currency at G20 on November 15.

Ron Paul on Alex Jones show Part1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqN2EKuXX2g)
Ron Paul on Alex Jones show Part2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo29Oa-e61I)

Take that 50$ and buy yourself something nice.  ;)

Not sure if this is meant to be evidence of anything, or what?

As for what's going to happen on November 15, we'll see soon enough whose predictions are correct (much like for similarly outlandish claims made about what would happen with the election earlier in the thread).

I do find myself corrected on one point: There is one respectable economist who calls for a world currency, namely Joseph Stiglitz (former head of the World Bank). Of course, while Stiglitz is a highly respected economist (Nobel Prize winner etc.), he's a fringe thinker when it comes to policy--somone who was kicked out of his job, partly for similar radical ideas. Also, it's interesting to see that if you read what he actually said (http://www.stwr.org/global-financial-crisis/joseph-stiglitz-crisis-points-to-need-for-new-global-currency.html), it's not only a much more nuanced argument (he's really just talking about a weighted currency basket made up of the separate national currencies), but on most other points he actually agrees with what those who fear a world government are saying. He also rails against the bankers and the Federal Reserve, so I'm not sure how his proposal is supposed to be part of their plot.

I was talking to a 'friend' the other day about the ol' Amero myth (I say 'friend' because he's more of somebody I associate with 'cause of another friend but we don't really like each other). 

Anyway ... this guy is so sure that he's right about everything that he simply won't give credence to anybody else's ideas.  I always rib him about it and try to explain that disagreeing is okay but doesn't automatically make your idea right (as I attempted to point out earlier in the thread but apparently didn't succeed in getting the point across).  He just arbitrarily dismisses any idea that doesn't mesh with his and call you names and insult you.  That kind of close-minded unwillingness to other's ideas just comes across as ignorant and arrogant.  It's sad too 'cause he's actually a really smart guy.

Anyway ... he's convinced that the Amero will be the end of civilization as we know it!

Terran - you sound pretty convinced of its myth status ... do you have a source to back that up?  I'm just curious if you're 'in the know' on something?

It seems unlikely, to me, that we would switch currency like that given all the things I've heard recently about how the dollar's (ones, fives, tens, etc) appearance is being altered, made counterfeit proof, and updated but I concede it's not impossible that it's "time for a change".   

Personally I'd not mind it if paper currency went away entirely ...

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 08/11/2008 19:23:35
Not sure if this is meant to be evidence of anything, or what?

Well if congressman Ron Paul tells on public radio show that there will be a discussion of implementing a new monetary system on nov 15 and that doesn't sway you to believe that it will be on the table, I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe he's making it up... ::)

Or maybe he's crazy...

In any case, he seems to be making his prediction based on the assumption that there is a long-running secret conspiracy among the world's bankers to create a world government, that these bankers control the media, that they deliberately engineered the current financial crisis, that Bush was their puppet, and that the same people have now installed Obama as their new puppet. Now their plot has almost come to fruition, and things are about to move into the open.

Given those views; no, I am not particularly swayed by what Ron Paul says.

However, at this point I don't particularly care about convincing anyone. As I said earlier, we won't have to wait long to see who is right.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1954933468700958565 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1954933468700958565)

Hehehe... Conspiranoids... :) Stupot will love this!  :D

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 09/11/2008 02:53:05
Hehehe... Conspiranoids... :) Stupot will love this!  :D

Hehe... it did sound like an attractive conspiracy until he said Mexico were in on it... I can't see that myself.
Also... if it was true I don't think that video would have lasted on google for over a month.

.

1. Something like the Amero or a unified North America would have been made very public and legitimized in the news.
2. This myth is based on a meeting of the leaders of Canada, US, and Mexico in 2005.
3. If I say something isn't true because there is no clear evidence to support it, why should *I* be the one that tries to prove my case?

(http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/amero.jpg)

Quote from: TerranRich on Sun 09/11/2008 19:45:061. Something like the Amero or a unified North America would have been made very public and legitimized in the news.
2. This myth is based on a meeting of the leaders of Canada, US, and Mexico in 2005.
3. If I say something isn't true because there is no clear evidence to support it, why should *I* be the one that tries to prove my case?

Ouch ... Jeez man I wasn't trying to offend/attack you.  I was just curious if you had some insider scoop the rest of us weren't privy too.

You said:

Quote from: TerranRich on Sat 08/11/2008 18:23:50That whole North American unified currency thing is, and always has been, completely false. It was a rumor started long ago. There will be no "Amero", nor any other unified North American currency.

Nowhere in there did you say, "there is no clear evidence to support it". 

You made a few absolute statements with "no clear evidence to support them".

I don't think it's unreasonable for somebody to wonder why and how you acquired such surety on the matter, that's all :)

* Darth buys Terran a beer!! * 

:)

Perhaps I should have said that there was no evidence to support claims of a unified North American government, currency, or anything along those lines. I didn't mean for #3 to come off as sounding angry or anything, but it sounded that way when I re-read it just now. Sorry!

I made that "absolute statement" because rumors like that are silly to me.

Sorry, I've had some rather annoying back problems lately and have been downing Ibuprofen and laying down to try and get rid of it.  As far as evidence goes, sure, Ron Paul is a congressman and he's not going to lie about this stuff (nor is he crazy), but you're free to believe what you like. 


RickJ:  Your point is well taken and my earlier reply was probably just poorly worded.  I don't disagree with you on this issue and am aware of the full faith clause, though we've seen exceptions to the rule almost from the beginning.


Disco:  I really don't know what to say to you, Ken.  We're so diametrically opposed on this issue that, well, I just can't find the words.


Nacho:  You can see anything as a 'conspiracy' if your mind is is completely shut.  I place no faith or value in 'conspiracies', because by their very nature people do not take them seriously.  What I'm suggesting is that you read a few books on the subject (A Nation of Sheep by Judge Andrew Napolitano is a good one to start with), look around at the climate change in the economy, and then decide whether something is ludicrous or whether it's really possible.  I'm not talking about UFO's here, I'm talking about politicians who have had a shift in thinking and have come to believe some of these ideas are great and all for the best.  Again, I'm not demonizing anyone here, just pointing out things I have read from sources I consider to be worth at least acknowledging and thinking about.  Did you know that Spain was intentionally omitted from the currency meeting on the 15th, for example?  This may change since France has discussed offering up an extra slot, though.


Snarky:

What will most likely happen at the November 15th meeting will be the foundation for a new Bretton Woods system, but it will be unlike the Bretton Woods of the past in that it will move us farther toward a global economy (and farther away from national sovereignty).  I believe The Wall Street Journal had a blurb about this a few days ago, though most of the details are still being withheld from the public.  Also, the NAU/Amero issue is far from a myth and has been acknowledged to be in the works by several officials not limited to but including: Steve Previs, Vincente Fox (he mentioned on Larry King that it is a long-term proposal, though the timeline's in question), Virgil Goode, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul. 

There's a blurb where Steve Previs talks a bit about the Amero here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

There have also been two unsuccessful attempts to block the NAU/Highway/Amero in Congress by Virgil Goode with House Concurrent Resolution 487 which he later re-introduced as House Concurrent Resolution 40, which you can read here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/hc487_ih.xml

Resolution 40 had considerably more sponsors in Congress than the original (from 6 to 40 or so, I don't remember the exact numbers), and any time you see resolutions like these coming through Congress the onus is really on you whether or not to take them as real concerns.

The government holds secret meetings all the time, and I'm rather surprised that any of you find it impossible, or even improbable, that they would conduct a discussion of currency change without revealing the details.  How many of us were aware of the secret prisons in the US for suspected terrorists until long after they were in use? 

What I'm saying is that there are people in our government who have come to believe (and perhaps rightly so) that the majority of the American people don't even want to know what's going on as long as they can live their lives in relative peace.  It's a situation born from voter apathy and many other things, but mainly big government that's gotten used to taking care of us instead of people taking care of and being responsible for themselves.  Much like a parent, they aren't always going to tell us what they're up to, they just want us to trust it's in our best interests, and that's pretty much what I feel is going to happen with the Bretton Woods 2.5* system. 

Could I be wrong?  Well let's just say I certainly hope so!


*I've used an arbitrary number here because there was, very briefly, a Bretton Woods II system that was canned.

.

The electoral college should be replaced with a popular vote, none of the other American elections use the electoral college system AFAIK. That and they should have one primary where everyone votes instead of having it be state by state. If you live in one of those states that has a late primary than you may not get to cast a vote for your party's candidate.

I am glad Obama won though as I agree with him on most issues, that and Palin was way to far to the right, McCain wouldn't have been that bad if he didn't choose her.

About the new currency from what I hear they may be changing the size of the paper money to make it more fair to blind people.

.

Shouldn't this be in a new thread, PixelPerfect? Not only did you drag up an old, outdated thread, but your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Fakemoderatorsayswhat?

Well, he's right. PixelPerfect just dug up a months-old thread to post something almost completly unrelated.

Plus, awesome as the concept may be, I seriously doubt we're going to see a "world currency" anytime soon. Ah, well. At least they accept Euros and/or Dolllars in most places.

Quote from: jetxl on Sat 11/07/2009 07:42:45
Fakemoderatorsayswhat?

Ah yes, because breaking common sense to somebody is pretending to be a moderator. Maybe if I were going, "Why aren't my magical powers making this thread disappear!? I'm the moderator, bitch!"

Currency is one of those national pride things that people are reluctant to give up. If we (the UK) didn't join the Euro I can't see us joining this.

This United World Currency thing is bullshit.

/me pulls out his stack of Amero bills.

Quote from: Terran!* TerranRich pulls out his stack of Amero bills...

...and then continues work on BTS whilst not worrying about what is going on in this thread.

All I can say as a Brit is:

Fuck the united world currency.

And

Fuck the Euro.

Im not into my economics or politics but:

How the hell am I suppose to buy stuff cheap from a poor country, if we are all using the same currency? Im poor enough as it is!

Quote from: Snake on Mon 13/07/2009 23:58:57

Quote from: Terran!* TerranRich pulls out his stack of Amero bills...

...and then continues work on BTS whilst not worrying about what is going on in this thread.

Ohhh, don't you worry about BTS. ;) It's coming quiiiite nicely. :)