Heartland

nodubmanshouts wrote:

That isn't an exclusively American thing.

It may not be, but I seem to remember a fair amount of book banning back in the day in England, not to mention not being able to air certain Irish politicians voices on TV. May be before your time Dark, but not that long ago.

True, but I'm just saying that we've gone a fair way, and hopefully it'll remain something not exclusive to the US, and some day people will be amazed to hear that it ever wasn't the case.

Twelve reasons why Obama will win.

Normally I don't give much credence to the Huffington Post -- I despise their anti-vaccine stance for instance -- but I think this article is interesting.

markfiend wrote:Twelve reasons why Obama will win.

Normally I don't give much credence to the Huffington Post -- I despise their anti-vaccine stance for instance -- but I think this article is interesting.

There is an old saying, however: The Republicans have a secret weapon they can break out in every presidential election that usually ensures victory. That weapon is the Democratic Party.

I don't know what kind of coverage things have been getting on your side of the pond, but here it has become very, very obvious that the Obama campaign is in a state of panic--as is Obama himself. This isn't really surprising, however. What people forget is that he's never had to run against a serious opponent. When he took his Illinois state seat, he ran nigh-unopposed, and when he ran for the Senate, his original opponent (the ex husband of the an actress on one of the Star Trek shows) withdrew from the race after his divorce proceedings were made public (apparently he tried to get her to go to orgy clubs or some such thing). This guy was replaced at the last minute by Alan Keyes. No one would ever vote for Alan Keyes. In the Democratic primary, it was down to him and Hillary, and the only real differences there were personality. He's an inexperienced campaigner, as are, I suspect, many of the people running his campaign. As things stand right now, he's no longer running against John McCain: he's running against Sarah Palin, and that is a very stupid thing to do. Why? A number of reasons, but the biggest one is that it simply serves to make McCain himself look more presidential and post-partisan. It elevates him, while it pulls Obama down. Even worse (for Obama) is that by attacking Palin he makes himself look un-presidential: he's attacking the junior officer on the ticket.

The Palin pick really did catch the Obama camp completely off guard. They didn't see it coming (for the record: I did. About three weeks prior I had spent the day drinking beer with my brother and I told him that if McCain wanted to win, he'd gamble on Sarah Palin). They even had a website devoted to attacking potential picks (thenextcheny.com or something), and Palin wasn't on it. There was a lot of talk in the media about picking 2000 Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman or former DHS top dog Tom Ridge (both pro-choice), but I doubt they were ever seriously considered. It was all a smoke screen to disorient the Obama campaign, and it worked. They were caught off-guard by the Palin pick, and they still haven't figured out what to do about it. Why? Because Obama buys his own press, he buys into his own myth (that was obvious when he gave his speech at the stadium in Denver). That's dangerous for him, and it's stupid on his part. They're stuck in a position of playing defense now, and they're not very good at it.

Ironically, part of the reason for this disaster is the Biden pick. I am pretty sure that McCain would have picked Palin regardless of who Obama picked, but the Biden pick simply shouted out to the world that Obama is insecure about the foreign policy question with the wider electorate (which he should be). It was a huge mistake. If Obama had run against serious opponents before, I think he would have known not to pick Joe "Hillary would be a better VP than me" Biden. In fact, I think he should have picked Hillary Clinton. I guarantee that his campaign would not be running off the rails now if had picked her, they would not be losing ground in the polls, and they certainly would not have experienced a 20(!) point shift in the numbers among white women (a core Democratic voting block where Obama has dropped nine points and McCain has gained 11).

If the Democrats really wanted to win, however, they would have nominated Hillary Clinton. She knows how the game is played, and she is very, very good at it. Obama doesn't know how to do it, and honestly, he isn't very good at it. The McCain campaign has been very effective for the last two months--surprisingly so. The Obama campaign, however, looks like a kid who has been playing in the minor leagues, and is suddenly thrown into the big leagues, and doesn't quite know what to do. I'm not saying that they can't turn it around, but each day that this goes on makes it less and less likely that they will. Going forward, the nature of the campaign plays to McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses. McCain isn't very good when giving a speech off of a teleprompter, but he is much more effective when speaking extemporaneously. The opposite is true for Obama. He meanders, wanders and says "uhh..." a lot. Speaking extemporaneously, focused, and succinctly are not among his strengths, and those are what the debate requires. Again, that's not to say he won't pull out a victory in November, but I think the odds are increasingly against him.

edit: I am wordy this morning. I will blame the fact that I've not yet had my coffee.

I don't watch shows like Big Brother for a reason. This show is worse.

taylor wrote:@dei: are you honestly trying to say you don't think the last 8 years would have been any different if Al Gore had won in 2000?

simply the same mate , after 2000 death at home what president should to do ? speak cordially or cruise ?

Different, sure, but not better. For the last 100 years it's hard to look at closely at USA's doings in anything and find anything good at all that they've achieved. They f**k up the planet everywhere they go and rip off poorer nations than themselves all they can, regardless of whoever is "in charge.", planting the leaders they want in faraway nations that they want something from.

i mean, it's just a rogue nation and one puppet in the white house doesn't change much.

As to what the president should do, not sure what you mean, but Iraq or Hussein had nothing at all to do with anything regarding 9/11, retaliation against a country because of a terrorist attack is not idiotic but rather an excuse to get rid of someone you don't like because your masters don't like him.
Besides, what it comes to 911, it'd also be good to notice that the USA has f**ked with the arab nations in favour of Israel for so long that USA's actions itself could be considered acts of war and 911 merely a strike of self-defence. Of course, the great and mighty USA could never admit they've ever done anything wrong anywhere and that they might actually deserve a spanking and start practising the way the founders of the nation actually tried to pave (if they did, i don't know if they did or was it all just words from the beginning).

And if 911 was just orchestrated as a pretext for war in Iraq and war on terror and for the sake of putting thumbscrews on people by "strengthening security" but in reality just for the sake of increased control...well, whoever in the white house would've not changed anything. i think there are certainly a lot of indicators in every western nation on how safety and security and crime-prevention are more and more brought to the forefront that it's very legitimate to start suspecting the motives.

Not to put too fine a point on it, i think the USA has with it's actions declared already a war against the whole world, and only because other nations also have puppets for governments everyone pretends like usa could be something great. It never was, and it never will be.

Give the land back to american indians, start paying for people and peoples you've f**ked up, start apologising for your actions and show sincere regret, clean up the government and the whole infrastructure by getting rid of crooks and liars...when these kinds of things start happening from the side of the USA, then i think the country could be on to something. But USA needs a whole goddam revolution before it might becoming anything that any decent person would want to have something to do with.

There's also a saying which is good to remember, the two parties there agree 80% on domestic issues and 99% on foreign policy issues (or something to that effect)...makes no difference, it's just a complete puppet show. Either way, the hidden hand wins.

And you Italians have Berlusconi...

Just by way of closing i'd want to add that i think there could be a world of international interaction without globalism. The leaders of our nations could be honest and respectable people instead of these clowns, puppets and sickos we have. Laws could make sense and our economic system shouldn't have to be favouring megacorporatoins making profit for God knows what purpose.
i mean, i'd prefer this kind of world to what we have now. As it's not realistic today because everything has already gone to hell, i'm not interested in a world structured like this anymore at all. People simply can't live in a world like this and remain in a natural state of goodness and innocence.
If a number of people got to live in a pre-Christian world, like Rome, or Greece, for a number of years, say 10 years, i know that the best and most decent of these people would not want to return back to this civilization, and several of the not-best and non-decent people would change their hearts and improve and want to remain there, too. That's a fact in my mind. Most of human ugliness is created and fostered by our culture.

PS: This rant isn't against any americans here or not here. i just hate the country and the people in charge of it...and well, the education system could be better. i think education systems of all the world should go back towards more classical schooling, the whole western system produces imbeciles known as "experts".

I think this is, on the whole, the very first post from you that I have to agree with, Dei. You make some excellent points about the USA - as a nation and government, not the individuals - not assuming responsibility for the atrocities it has committed and still is committing. Many individual Americans see and understand the need for that, but it takes the whole nation and the governing bodies to make up for them and that's not going to happen any time soon.

The only thing I disagree with, is your premise that if a number of people would get to live in a pre-christian society like the Roman Empire of Ancient Greece, they wouldn't want to return. Why? Because those societies actually invented the organised corruption of democracy by using politics. Panem et Circenses anyone? If you read the ancient texts of what the Roman Empire was all about, you can clearly see that political manoeuvering by way of manipulating entire foreign governments and invading, sacking, murdering raping and plundering those who opposed the Empire's rule was the lay of the land in those days. And they went about it a lot more brutal than even the USA does today. But in all, the rhetoric and methods are the same as in those days. It's just a little more 'civilized' today, if you can call it that. Oh, and political opponents don't get murdered anymore the way they did back in the Roman Empire...

itnAklipse wrote:If a number of people got to live in a pre-Christian world, like Rome, or Greece, for a number of years, say 10 years, i know that the best and most decent of these people would not want to return back to this civilization, and several of the not-best and non-decent people would change their hearts and improve and want to remain there, too.

Great. And everyone else would be slaves right? F*ck that. Plenty of people have had the idea of reinstating something like the Roman Empire: Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler...

Say what you like about democracy, sure it's liable to fall victim to 'bread and circuses' voting, but it's better than living in any kind of dictatorship.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has Obama well ahead in the polls...

My cretin of a boss is such a twisted, power-hungry little man (raging Napoleon complex) that he refuses to use a computer at work, and makes me print out all of his email, after which he *hand-writes* his responses, which I'm then expected to put back into electronic form. No, really.

That insanity aside (and to make a long story short) - because I'm privy to all of his email, I'm subjected daily to extremely-offensive mass-distribution mud-slinging diatribes sent by his bottom-feeding business cronies, gleefully detailing methods for bulldozing Obama supporters, etc., etc., ad nauseam. I've a mind to send a massive "FUCK OFF!" response to the entire distribution list...

Like all the 'Obama is a muslin' nonsense?

And that's not a typo: clicky

I know what muslin is - I studied a year's worth of fashion design, back in the day...shhhh.

ETA: ROFL!

Aha! Thank you Martin. Use the search facility? At 2am? When my spellings failing me? I'm impressed by your optimism! You'll be voting Democrat then?

Francis wrote:Aha! Thank you Martin. Use the search facility? At 2am? When my spellings failing me? I'm impressed by your optimism! You'll be voting Democrat then?

I am sure that your spelling at 2 a.m. is better than my typing at noon. Just as Jam~es.

Were I to vote, I am not sure that I would vote for Obama-Biden. For those of you who think that I therefore would go toward McCain-Palin, you are exactly those whose myths I want to shatter. I much prefer a system which reflects the positions of the populace.

Some points which bother me about the presidential elections in America:

1) One citizen, one vote; one vote, two candidates. Why are president and vice-president elected together? Constitutionally they need not be a ticket or of the same party. The vice-president does not need to be an advisor; that is the reason for having cabinet positions. The vice-president is to (1) break ties in the Senate, and (b) be next in line should the president die or be incapacitated. For those who think that they need to work together, look at some examples in the past few decades. Clinton-Gore were close until the final years when Gore looked to run for the top job, but they are unusual. Bush and Quayle were not buddies. Bush coined the term "voodoo economics" to describe Reagan's economic policies, so they were not always on the same page. I can not picture Kennedy and Johnson having lunch much. Eisenhower could not compliment Nixon when the latter was running in 1960. Ford was not even Nixon's running mate during the 1972 election!

Let the voters decide who they prefer for the next in line. If it ends up being Bush and Bentsen or Perot (whose popularity plateaued after Stockdale's vice-presidential debate) and Gore, so be it. That is much more validated than having to pick a ticket often based on demographics or which states the running mate may help to carry.

(2) That leads to the second point. If the electoral college is supposed to prevent large states from being too influential in national policies, then the aim failed. Idaho, Maine, south Dakota, and the like are afterthoughts in terms of personally campaigning there. Florida, California, New York, Pennsylvania -- these are places where the candidates will be seen. If the presidency is the top executive officer for the entire country, then make it an even field and have the votes be cast in a single pot.

If for some reason the electoral college is kept in place, at least modify it so that each state has its votes distributed in a fashion other than winner-take-all. Dividing them by district (with the majority candidate getting the extra two) is one way, but that has gerrymandering drawbacks. A better way in my view would be to divide the votes proportionally within the state. Going back to Perot, he received nearly one-fifth of the popular votes, but not a single electoral vote.

Look at Germany. The Greens will not win a plurality of the votes in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, they garner enough support to make them a voice in the government. Votes for the Republikaner in Hamburg or the PDS in Saxony necessitate that the leading parties address issues which they otherwise would be willing to ignore. Such pressure by non-winning blocks is better than drawing a line in the sand and hoping that more people will stand on your side.

(3) The election cycle itself is much like a snapshot on a day in November. It is how the voters leaned on a single day which affects the next four years (at least for president). It is a popularity contest, even if people vote for the lesser of two evils. If people are dissatisfied with the direction of the government's policies, they nevertheless must wait out a term (except in extreme cases). If there is enough dissatisfaction over economics, corruption, overseas troops, health matters, whatever, in other places, the ruling government can be ousted and new elections called. An executive with 30% approval and a legislature with half of that is not a positive situation. Stability is a good thing, but not if it means giving someone a blank check to do as he or she pleases, especially if unable to run for office again.

Overall, I think that special interests, not general opinions, have the upper hand in elections, and the higher the prize, the harder the battles are fought. Give me a system which better reflects the wishes of the electorate, or even better a system which has more direct voice through referenda. Constant referenda on a national level may be impractical, but certainly the electorate must feel more attached to the governing process. I seriously doubt that anyone is still reading this far. Sorry to ramble.

So, Francis, do regret your post yet? James, I will not proofread this one.

Petseri wrote:Give me a system which better reflects the wishes of the electorate, or even better a system which has more direct voice through referenda.

You complain that politics are too dependent on how voters lean on a single day and then you propose frequent referenda, an instrument that is known to have exactly this issue as its weak spot. How can these two go together?

nowayjose wrote:You complain that politics are too dependent on how voters lean on a single day and then you propose frequent referenda, an instrument that is known to have exactly this issue as its weak spot. How can these two go together?

I also noted that referenda may be impractical on a grand scale. Nevertheless, if they or elections occur when issues arise, and not on a fixed date potentially years away, that would be better than the current US system.

Which is better, 55% of the electorate picking wisely or poorly in a referendum or having a representative elected without a plurality of the popular vote making the same choice?

I've been following this whole discussion with interest, especially because I wouldn't know at all who to vote for in this election. None of the (potential) candidates convince me, and a system that doesn't represent all major political parties in a country generally gives me a hard time. No system is immune to a switch to the far right, granted, but at least the other powers in the goverment can stop it before a 4 years' period is over. To my great surprise I've seen this happen here last December.
Besides, I doubt that referenda are impractical even on a large scale. Ok, I live in a tiny country, and we know two kinds of referenda: the "obligatory" one (in case of any change to the constitution) and the "optional" one (to question federal law). For the latter 8 cantons or 50 000 citizens are needed to demand one. In a large country simply take a far larger amount of states and/or citizens. Besides, usually the threat to demand a referendum is sufficient to shape political decisions as a compromise between the differing political interests. This way referenda offer a further division of powers which I think benefits the majority. The same goes for proportional systems instead of "winner takes it all".

Petseri wrote:
Which is better, 55% of the electorate picking wisely or poorly in a referendum or having a representative elected without a plurality of the popular vote making the same choice?

For the record, nothing in the Constitution gives the people the right to vote for president.

And Eva: the American system does represent "all major political parties" within the United States. I don't know what European Greens are like, but ours tend to be a little crazy, and our Libertarian party is split between the less-vocal advocates of a return to the limited government of the Founders and the more-vocal advocates of isolationism and drug legalization (two positions which do not broadly resonate with the American people).

Libertarianism-with-a-small-L I have a great deal of time for (as in, the opposite to authoritarianism). It's the free-marketeers I have a problem with.

I do think it's possible to find a balance which maximises all people's personal freedoms, while still making collective decisions for a planned economy for the good of all.

Maybe I'm an idealist...

sultan2075 wrote:And Eva: the American system does represent "all major political parties" within the United States.

I know. But it does so in a very different way than the system I live in. As I perceive the situation, if I was in the US I'd only have the choice between democrats and republicans. The others simply aren't big enough for a chance to win the presidency. Where I live there are 7 heads on top, consisting of the 5 major parties, and the parliament consists of nearly all existing parties, seats given per amount of votes. It might be a slow and somewhat blurry system, but I seem to have more choice. Besides, and this would make it even more difficult for me, either side in the States stands for beliefs that aren't mine. As somebody else stated here: What is leftwing for you, is center-right for me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10 ... index.html

Worrying.

When Obama wins this election, I will be seriously concerned that he won't live to the end of his term.

The Man in Black's daughter on why she'd be a better VP than Sarah Palin http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081027/cash

Genius!

My first thought was "Since when did Eldritch have a daughter?"

markfiend wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10 ... index.html

Worrying.

When Obama wins this election, I will be seriously concerned that he won't live to the end of his term.

I really wouldn't be worried. A lot of people, right and left, are very frustrated with the current media atmosphere with regard to Obama, and see the media as no longer remotely objective (for example, their unwillingness to examine the CRA and the Democratic oversight of Fannie/Freddy in light of the recent financial clusterfuck), and are just venting. And to be honest, I think there is something understandable about that: John McCain could say Barack Obama farts sunshine and kittens, and he would be accused of being a racist. People on both the right and the left are getting increasingly worried about this election, in part because a lot of unsavory things are being linked to Obama (i.e., he was involved with ACORN, which has now been linked to some pretty disturbing incidents of vote fraud, including registering the Dallas Cowboys as voters in two separate states, registering 105% of the city of Indianapolis to vote, and 4000 dead people in Houston, giving an entirely new meaning to Burke's "democracy of the dead"), and in part because links are now coming out between Obama and groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and the New Party, which are viewed as extremist by many Americans, including many Democrats. One might also add that the federal government is looking into his campaign contributions as well (though such an investigation would not be concluded until well after the actual election). Things are getting ugly here, but that is because part of the Democratic party looks at his nomination as illegitimate (they call themselves PUMAs) and the Republicans are looking at the current electoral climate as one in which they don't even have a fair shot at making their case to the American people. Moderate liberals are worried that an Obama victory would lead to the sort of policies that would ensure a fairly long-standing conservative ascendancy, and conservatives are worried that even if McCain wins, he won't do anything to shrink the bloated federal government (after all, conservatives are not exactly his biggest fans).

But shooting Obama? Ain't gonna happen.

edit: I'd also add that I'm not convinced he will win. This has been a very fluid race, and things could change again, quickly. The Boston Herald recently ran a piece by (or about, I don't recall) a pollster, the upshot of which was: there are too many variables, too much could change, it's too close to call. I seem to recall this was the same pollster who correctly predicted a win for Bush in 2004.

IMHO, media objectivity has never existed, and never will. I would much prefer that each media outlet/personality outwardly declare their stance either for a specific party and/or set of policies. That way we, the viewers and voters, can keep this in mind when viewing the news, etc.

Right now, we get the ridiculous situation of somebody like O'Reilly declaring himself an "independent", when he is obviously and out-and-out core Republican.

But back on topic, I'm extremely concerned about either of these candidates winning. I got my voting pamphlet, and am currently trying to figure out which of the non-front runners will get my vote.

markfiend wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10 ... index.html

Worrying.

When Obama wins this election, I will be seriously concerned that he won't live to the end of his term.

Ditto. And even knowing that purported "Rednecks For Obama" are out there still doesn't assuage that fear...