US Election

[Francis]

I know, I know, I keep banging on about this, but it's important over this side of the pond. I guess most of our American bretheren are of the Democrat persuasion, so what about yer man's latest gaff? And herself's indignant response?

[sultan2075]

I know, I know, I keep banging on about this, but it's important over this side of the pond. I guess most of our American bretheren are of the Democrat persuasion, so what about yer man's latest gaff? And herself's indignant response?

The Democratic Party has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This election was in the bag for them (not unlike the last one), but now they are self-destructing, and both Democratic campaigns seem to be run by incompetents. It will go down to the convention, I think, and that will be a very nasty thing. My understanding is that the Obamessiah is ahead in terms of pledged delegates but that Hillary! is actually ahead in terms of the popular vote, which means a messy, messy convention with hurt feelings all around, with the eventual nominee being weakened by the current mess. Also, recent polling indicates that Hillary! supporters would vote for McCain over the Obamessiah, should Obama get the nomination, and that Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary! if she gets the nomination. It doesn't look good for either of them at this point.

Things could change between now and November, but at the moment... I'm expecting the next president McCain. Like they say, in every election, the Republicans seem to have a secret weapon: the Democratic party.

[itnAklipse]

One of my favourite songs, really powerful, by Barry MCGuire, seems somehow relevant always when there's elections in the JUS of A:

The eastern world, it is exploding
Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’
You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’
And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’

But you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Don’t you understand what I’m tryin’ to say
Can’t you feel the fears I’m feelin’ today?
If the button is pushed, there’s no runnin’ away
There’ll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Yeah, my blood’s so mad feels like coagulatin’
I’m sitting here just contemplatin’
I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don’t pass legislation
And marches alone can’t bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin’
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is in Red China
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama
You may leave here for 4 days in space
But when you return, it’s the same old place
The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace
Hate your next-door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace

And… tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend
You don’t believe
We’re on the eve
Of destruction
Mm, no no, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction

(Though my favourite performance of it was by Bobby Fischer in one radio interview, the original version is cool, too)

[stufarq]

My understanding is that the Obamessiah is ahead in terms of pledged delegates but that Hillary! is actually ahead in terms of the popular vote

Well, it's not as if the people actually get to vote for President, is it? Their views are taken into consderation but certainly aren't binding. The greatest democracy in the free world.

[6FeetOver]

The greatest democracy in the free world.

[EvilBastard]

My understanding is that the Obamessiah is ahead in terms of pledged delegates but that Hillary! is actually ahead in terms of the popular vote

Well, it's not as if the people actually get to vote for President, is it? Their views are taken into consderation but certainly aren't binding. The greatest democracy in the free world.

Well exactly - they seem rather too keen on exporting the idea of democracy to people with no democratic tradition (and who apparently don't seem too keen on the idea) rather than employing it at home. The idea of the Electoral College is not a bad one - AIUI it was conceived to make sure that the right people were made president (i.e. "people who think like us").

While I can see that "one person, one vote" means that people who live in places like Montana don't have their voices heard (because they're drowned out by more populous states like California), I've yet to hear an argument against "one state, one vote" except that there are 50 states and there's the possibility of a draw.

The only reasonable system, of course, is a monarchy - feudal and antiquated it may be, but at least it's ordained by god and not the lowest possible common denominator.

[6FeetOver]

The only reasonable system, of course, is a monarchy - feudal and antiquated it may be, but at least it's ordained by god...

Again, .

[nodubmanshouts]

Ah, the classic great misunderstandings about the world's greatest country....

The USA is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. Think of it as Democracy being the ideal, Republicanism being the practicality.

The electoral college, by and large, is mandated by law (state law) to follow the votes of the populous. I agree, the system is not perfect, especially since not all states have this law, but its important to remember the USA is exactly what it says on the tin -- a collection of United States. Its up to each state to determine how, and ensure that, the Electoral Collegiates votes, not the Federal government.

Back to the original question; Hilary and Obama are taking out each other rather nicely, leaving the field open the McCain, as stated above. If Obama wins the nomination though, I'm sure he'll recover and go on to win. We can then look forward to 8 years of increased tax, and probably a few extra crappy social programs to boot... 20 years from now, we'll look back and say how we all miss the Bush years.

[sultan2075]

Ah, the classic great misunderstandings about the world's greatest country....

The USA is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. Think of it as Democracy being the ideal, Republicanism being the practicality.

The electoral college, by and large, is mandated by law (state law) to follow the votes of the populous. I agree, the system is not perfect, especially since not all states have this law, but its important to remember the USA is exactly what it says on the tin -- a collection of United States. Its up to each state to determine how, and ensure that, the Electoral Collegiates votes, not the Federal government.

Back to the original question; Hilary and Obama are taking out each other rather nicely, leaving the field open the McCain, as stated above. If Obama wins the nomination though, I'm sure he'll recover and go on to win. We can then look forward to 8 years of increased tax, and probably a few extra crappy social programs to boot... 20 years from now, we'll look back and say how we all miss the Bush years.

Thanks for bringing that up. The Federalist actually argues that you need to have a republic/representative democracy because of the size of the nation (at the time, the 13 colonies). Direct democracy doesn't seem to be a good idea once you get beyond the size of a small town, and in a large country it would essentially mean rule by the densely populated urban areas--in the US, that would mean the presidency would be determined by the residents of NY, Boston, Chicago, Philly, LA, San Fran, D/FW, Houston, etc., and the rest of the people would be S. O. L. Hence, the electoral college.

There's not a lot I disagree with here, except for the suggestion that Obama can pull out a win in the general election. I think he has been irreparably damaged as a candidate; even worse, it's been by his own doing and not that of Hillary! or McCain. The Reverend Wright controversy is a problem, though not an insurmountable one by itself. It becomes one when other issues get factored in, such as the video where he discusses dismantling national defense, the connection to the Weather Underground and his mind-bogglingly stupid comments about Pennsylvania voters clinging to God and guns because they're bitter about the economy. Last night's debate in Philadelphia didn't make him look any better either, after he agreed with moderator Charlie Gibson that historically reductions in the capital gains tax increase federal revenues overall, while still maintaining that he would increase those taxes. He keeps shooting himself in the foot over and over and over again, and in a general election the Republicans will be able to demolish him

Whichever one of them gets the nomination is not going to have a united party behind him/her. Hillary is increasingly looking like the more mature of the two Democratic candidates (which is a great shock).

[eotunun]

The only reasonable system, of course, is a monarchy - feudal and antiquated it may be, but at least it's ordained by god...

Again, .

Hey, God who? That idol of the monotheistic cult of prehistoric mid eastern shepherds that coincidentally turned into the greatest set of violent dictatorships of a milenium before people managed to fight them back bit by bit applying rules of enlightenment?
That murdering beast of the Old Testament?
That father of three, two of whom are illegitimate?
They won't sell me their fictionary afterlife-insurance. I don't trust insurance salesmen.
And, if anyone encounters a *real* democracy on this planet, that means a one that works on wisdom of crowds, please tell me. That would be more like a non-destructive anarchy. Unfortunately ape's instincts work differently, thus we have authoritarian systems.

On topic, I fear Sultan is right. The Democratic Party currently seems to burn its own ground. I think the USA desperately need a change, even if only to stir the soup of lobbyists and bring some fresh ones to the surfaces so the flow of money gets into motion again and some of the protectionists lose they sheltering effect as to get some of the crooks who spurred the latest catastrophy to U.S. economy sued for their criminal activities.
I guess that's the best one could hope for within the range of possibilities.

[Syberberg]

I also think sultan is right. The Democratic Party seem to have an unnerving ability to shoot themselves simultaneously in both feet, with unerring accuracy, while swallowing them. All the while they, like 99.99% of all politicians the world over, have their heads firmly rammed up their own fundamental orifices.

[EvilBastard]

Ah, the classic great misunderstandings about the world's greatest country....

We weren't talking about Iceland

I don't have a problem with the US being a republic, a theocracy, a dynasty, or a clusterf*ck - after all, they've only been at it for 200-some years (which is barely enough time for a sh*t and a shave when you compare it to how long other countries have had a continuous form of government - the Isle of Man, for example) so it woud be reasonable to expect it to have some teething problems.

The bit I have the issue with is the US' claim to "export democracy" when they don't have any of their own. "It's not good enough for us, but it's fine for you, the conquered, the occupied, the subjugated and the humiliated. We're fully behind the idea of you having a democracy because that way we can make sure that our puppets are installed apparently by the will of the people, so even after we withdraw our military we'll still maintain control." The US used to have a strong tradition of supporting dictators (Mohammed Reza, Suharto, Saddam Hussein) but it probably figured that that's not really on any more, so it needs to find a more acceptable face for its client states.

[Pursued By Trees]

... if anyone encounters a *real* democracy on this planet, that means a one that works on wisdom of crowds, please tell me. That would be more like a non-destructive anarchy. Unfortunately ape's instincts work differently, thus we have authoritarian systems.

Perhaps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[nodubmanshouts]

The bit I have the issue with is the US' claim to "export democracy" when they don't have any of their own.

I would dispute that. The government of the USA is a *form* of democracy, and it works pretty well. There is also pure democracy in the form of states propositions. But ultimately the word "democracy" has become misused so often, we pretty much have to accept that it now means "a system in which people vote, and their vote counts in some form as to who runs the government".

If I have an issue, its with people second guessing how, when and why governments get involved with some wars and not others, and support some governments and not others. These are extremely complicated political issues, where most people are just not in procession of the facts.

We absolutely have the right and responsibility to question the actions of the government, but to do so on face value of the quality of "Iraq has oil, therefore war is over oil", really starts to grind. I'd really like to see some intelligent, thoughtful discussion on issues like this.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm still waiting for Ross Perot to step back in the race...

[EvilBastard]

Perhaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

Possibly, but Christiania is not self-sustaining. For as long as it takes any economic assistance from Denmark it cannot be seen as a functioning democratic state.

But this points to my earlier point of monarchy being the only really acceptable system - Danes live in a monarchy, and yet are some of the happiest people in the world.

[nodubmanshouts]

But this points to my earlier point of monarchy being the only really acceptable system

I thought you were joking...

- Danes live in a monarchy, and yet are some of the happiest people in the world.

Do you have any evidence for that? The suicide rate is 18% higher for Denmark than the USA.

[EvilBastard]

But this points to my earlier point of monarchy being the only really acceptable system

I thought you were joking...

- Danes live in a monarchy, and yet are some of the happiest people in the world.

Do you have any evidence for that? The suicide rate is 18% higher for Denmark than the USA.

I do

The data is a couple of years old, but...

HOW THE NATIONS RANKED ON HAPPINESS
1st - Denmark
2nd - Switzerland
3rd - Austria
4th - Iceland
5th - The Bahamas
23rd - USA
41st - UK
90th - Japan
178th - Burundi

[lazarus corporation]

Can I just point out the blindingly obvious - absolutely no correlation has been shown to link the monarchy in Denmark with the "happiness rating" of Denmark.

You could equally (and equally spuriously) argue that the happiness of each country is dependent on their relatively small populations or lack of nuclear weapons - both of which are also characteristics of the top 5 "happy countries" in the list.

[EvilBastard]

Can I just point out the blindingly obvious - absolutely no correlation has been shown to link the monarchy in Denmark with the "happiness rating" of Denmark.

Curses - you have rumbled my thinly-veiled plot to sow the seeds of a global monarchist uprising

You could equally (and equally spuriously) argue that the happiness of each country is dependent on their relatively small populations or lack of nuclear weapons - both of which are also characteristics of the top 5 "happy countries" in the list.

Although relatively small populations are believed to help happiness - high per capita GDP was mentioned as a factor.

[nodubmanshouts]

people are asked if they are happy with their lives,

Ah, the scientific method at work in the modern age... nothing subjective about that then

[Syberberg]

We absolutely have the right and responsibility to question the actions of the government, but to do so on face value of the quality of "Iraq has oil, therefore war is over oil", really starts to grind. I'd really like to see some intelligent, thoughtful discussion on issues like this.

The Iraq invasion was about oil.

1: Roughly 2 years prior to the invasion, Iraq started to sell it's oil (via the Oil For Food Program) in Euros, rather than US$.

2: The permanent members of the UN Security Council that opposed the invasion were: China, France and Russia. Saddam had signed oil exploration and extraction contracts with 3 countries, who would start their exploration and extraction once the sanctions had been lifted. 3 guesses who those 3 countries were.

3: The UK joined in to secure a supply of oil because in 1998/99 North Sea oil and gas production peaked and has been in decline ever since. The UK is now a net importer of oil and gas.

4: Since US oil production peaked in the early 1970's, the US now imports ~60% of it's oil requirements. As the US uses ~25% of all global oil produced, it needed to secure oil supplies. Given that it's own oil production is in decline, along with that of Mexico (and various others, OPEC and non-OPEC alike) and that global demand for oil is increasing ~2% per year, Iraq was too tasty a target.

We can start another thread if you'd like as that's a very brief overview, or we can carry on in this one, entirely up to you.

[EvilBastard]

I would dispute that. The government of the USA is a *form* of democracy, and it works pretty well. There is also pure democracy in the form of states propositions. But ultimately the word "democracy" has become misused so often, we pretty much have to accept that it now means "a system in which people vote, and their vote counts in some form as to who runs the government".

To an extent I would agree with you - the system of government in the USA does work pretty well. It is relatively stable (unlike Italy's) and doesn't provoke the kinds of anti-government feeling that you find in some other places.
But it is the manner of its election, rather than its conduct, that is troubling. Less than half the states in the union have laws stipulating punishment for an elector who fails to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, and to date no "faithless elector" has ever been punished. Without laws that require that the elector casts his vote per his pledge, the system is open to abuse. Granted, faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a presidential election, but while there exists the potential then in the narrowest view it is difficult to reconcile the system by which the president is elected with the principles of democracy.

If I have an issue, its with people second guessing how, when and why governments get involved with some wars and not others, and support some governments and not others. These are extremely complicated political issues, where most people are just not in procession of the facts.
We absolutely have the right and responsibility to question the actions of the government, but to do so on face value of the quality of "Iraq has oil, therefore war is over oil", really starts to grind. I'd really like to see some intelligent, thoughtful discussion on issues like this.

This is where we're going to have to part ways - wars of aggression are fought for one reason, and that reason is money. The more territory, people, and assets you control, the more money you have access to. Governments can dress it up any way they like, but the only reason to engage in an aggressive military venture is if the potential return justifies the expense. Any act of military aggression can be boiled down to money, whether that's Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 or Persia's invasion of Babylonia in 500-some BC.

Imagine the following conversation between The Taxpayer and The Government:

John W Taxpayer: Ok, so you're spending X on this war. Bearing in mind that X is our money, and that we expect to get a return on our investment, what are we going to get for our investment?

Government: Oh, the returns will be great. For a start, you'll have more security. We'll rout the terrorists from their caves and boltholes.

JWT: Ok, that sounds reasonable. So we invest $3 trillion in the war, that sounds like we should be able to buy a lot of security. For $3 trillion we, the taxpayers, are looking for an absolute guarantee that we'll never have to worry about terrorist attacks again.

G: well, we can't offer any guarantees, but...

JWT: Hold on there, skippy - you're telling us that we're spending more money than we can shake a stick at, plus the stick, and all the stick's friends, and you can't guarantee our security?

G: Well, you won't just get security. We'll be able to safeguard the nation's energy supplies too.

JWT: Hmm...you're spending $3 trillion of our money so we can all save a nickel on a gallon of gasoline. Now, that doesn't sound like a great idea either. I mean, there are lots of alternatives to gasoline that we could invest, I don't know, $1 trillion in and probably get pretty far down the road in terms of workable solutions.
You know, I think you're trying to buffalo us. These things you say we'll get for our investment, they don't sound worth the expenditure. Tell us what's really going on."

G: Ok, you got me - it's really so we can install an ally in Baghdad (as opposed to the ally we used to have there, who was useful for a while and then we decided we didn't like him, so we put a kangaroo court together and hanged him) so that we can control the people, territory, and assets. The return on your $3 trillion will be tenfold, because we'll control a vast chunk of the oil reserves which we can sell for big bucks. Of course, the only people who will get the benefit will be our favoured no-bid contractors, but you don't need to trouble your pretty little heads about that.

Of course, this is fanciful and simplistic, but it's not far off the mark. Wars are about money - the man in the street spends it, and the government and its cronies generally reap the biggest rewards.

[markfiend]

One of my favourite songs, really powerful, by Barry MCGuire, seems somehow relevant always when there's elections in the JUS of A:

I love that song.

And agreed with the sentiment too Dei

(I'm agreeing with you, what's going wrong? )

[nodubmanshouts]

Moving said war discussion to a new home, overlooking the North Sea

http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=16709

[Pista]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.