[Osric]

amphibian, on Nov 6 2008, 05:59 AM, said:

Can we get a lock from a mod? The election's done and over with.

And Barack Obama's campaign has changed the way politics will be done for the next generation or two. It was that good. Look at this piece: http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/haque/200..._for_radic.html

That link is way too theoretical and smells like propeganda to me. Not that I don't think Obama is the better candidate, but Obama did have 10 times the budget to spend on their campaign, they did dominate the media and they spend as much time slandering the republicans as the other way around.

Obama is a great speaker and is indeed good at inspiring, but other than that there wasn't that much special about his campaign that changed the way of politics. "Change the world"? No offense, but change begins with yourself, and speeches like this have been made since the 1980's. Compared to the rest of the world, America is way behind in how they deal with enviroment, American cars aren't even allowed in Holland cos they use so much gas. I'm happy that Obama wants change, and I hope it happens, but for America it needs to happen in America.

[Terez]

Osric, on Nov 6 2008, 03:44 AM, said:

amphibian, on Nov 6 2008, 05:59 AM, said:

Can we get a lock from a mod? The election's done and over with.

And Barack Obama's campaign has changed the way politics will be done for the next generation or two. It was that good. Look at this piece: http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/haque/200..._for_radic.html

That link is way too theoretical and smells like propeganda to me.

I agree - there wasn't a great deal of substance to the analysis. Some of the points that they touched on were valid points that I happen to know some details on, but the lack of details in the analysis makes it seem propagandish.

Terez, has an American car that gets well over 30mpg

[Osric]

Anyway, I don't mean to be too negative. To be honest I don't buy into the whole climate change is our fault thing, and besides, we're gonna run out of fossil fuels in about 50 years anyway, well before the climate change kills us, so some alternative has to be found anyway.

I'm also not saying all Americans are like this, I've talked to so many people from America and most of them were nice intelligent people. I am glad about the change though and hope Obama comes through. Stuff like the way America kept UN supervisors away from voting boots and basically the disrespect and contempt they showed throughout the entire voting process to the UN and other countries is pretty disheartening.

[Gem Windcaster]

I am very happy Obama won, and that so many voted. The most powerful democracy in the world needs this, it makes the rest of us countries out there less desperate. Now lest just hope the structures of Washington doesn't hinder Obama too much.

Good speech though.

[Shinrei]

Osric, on Nov 6 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

Stuff like the way America kept UN supervisors away from voting boots and basically the disrespect and contempt they showed throughout the entire voting process to the UN and other countries is pretty disheartening.

?????
I hadn't hear about this. And to be honest, my reaction is "as it should be". The UN has no business being involved with a US election in any capacity whatsoever.

[Obdigore]

Osric, on Nov 6 2008, 07:57 AM, said:

Anyway, I don't mean to be too negative. To be honest I don't buy into the whole climate change is our fault thing, and besides, we're gonna run out of fossil fuels in about 50 years anyway, well before the climate change kills us, so some alternative has to be found anyway.

I'm also not saying all Americans are like this, I've talked to so many people from America and most of them were nice intelligent people. I am glad about the change though and hope Obama comes through. Stuff like the way America kept UN supervisors away from voting boots and basically the disrespect and contempt they showed throughout the entire voting process to the UN and other countries is pretty disheartening.

But thats the thing. What have many of the current UN countries done to earn respect? Everyone always says respect is earned, but then many of the EU countries, and UN countries want to be respected while doing nothing on the world stage.

Bah I say. BAH.

[Osric]

Haha I knew I'd get reactions like that. No offense, but America is one of the countries that made the UN. The UN is there to make sure elections are done fairly and there isn't any corruption. The countries that are in the UN all agreed to this, that includes America. This was done because of world war 2, because of what happened then could have been avoided if the UN existed then. The UN checks every country, that includes America, even if they were the ones that came up with the idea in the first place.

It was in the news here in Holland but I can see why it wouldn't be in America. Besides, America meddles in most of the world's politics, we all respect that, so you really do get the respect you're talking about. Noone has forgotten what the US did in world war 2, the way they fought for us and the economic donations and generous loans that they made to get out economies back on their feets. However, lately it seems that America disrepects the very rules it helped create, the very values they themselves stand for.

All in all this is disheartening and I hope it will change.

This post has been edited by Osric: 06 November 2008 - 04:32 PM

[Obdigore]

But then you have countries not bound by the UN's agreements, or just groups of people, who work outside the laws/boundries set down, how do you protect your civillians from them?

European countries are having just as many terrorist problems as the US, but most of them do not have the military force to enact their will on governments/areas that refuse to stop harboring mass murderers and training camps for those mass murderers.

^ is in reference to Afghanistan, nor Iraq.

As an aside, do you really think the UN would have even the miniscule power it does now if the US pulled out? I don't mean that to be a threat, because I don't think that would be good for anyone, but just think about it.

As a second response to the UN - The Security Council is especially self serving. Every country on it is self serving, and many seem pleased to see one of their rivals hurt, and will do anything they can to block anything that might 'end the hurt.' That kind of idiocy is not welcome in this world, and if it were gone than the UN might be able to live up to its reason for creation.

[Osric]

Obdigore, on Nov 6 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

But then you have countries not bound by the UN's agreements, or just groups of people, who work outside the laws/boundries set down, how do you protect your civillians from them?

European countries are having just as many terrorist problems as the US, but most of them do not have the military force to enact their will on governments/areas that refuse to stop harboring mass murderers and training camps for those mass murderers.

^ is in reference to Afghanistan, nor Iraq.

As an aside, do you really think the UN would have even the miniscule power it does now if the US pulled out? I don't mean that to be a threat, because I don't think that would be good for anyone, but just think about it.

As a second response to the UN - The Security Council is especially self serving. Every country on it is self serving, and many seem pleased to see one of their rivals hurt, and will do anything they can to block anything that might 'end the hurt.' That kind of idiocy is not welcome in this world, and if it were gone than the UN might be able to live up to its reason for creation.

To be honest with you, now we're going into politics I dont know much about, so I wont embarrass myself trying to argue.
I dunno though, europe is not a small power, without us your economy would collapse, in a war it's really undecided who would win. Ofc it would be pointless and we'd end up nuking each other and everybody would die.

I hope foreign policies improve in America, for everybody's sake. America right now is pretty much bankrupt too. =/

[Terez]

A Dutchie that doesn't know everything? You are a blight upon your proud country!

[Shinrei]

The UN is inherently flawed, simply from the standpoint of the members of the security council awarded veto power. It's based on allies of 60 years ago, not on the real world as it exists now.

The UN has its own issues of corruption and self-serving. Not to mention it ends up rather toothless in just about any real crisis unless the veto powers actually manage to agree to something.

[amphibian]

Osric, on Nov 6 2008, 05:44 AM, said:

That link is way too theoretical and smells like propeganda to me. Not that I don't think Obama is the better candidate, but Obama did have 10 times the budget to spend on their campaign, they did dominate the media and they spend as much time slandering the republicans as the other way around.

Obama is a great speaker and is indeed good at inspiring, but other than that there wasn't that much special about his campaign that changed the way of politics. "Change the world"? No offense, but change begins with yourself, and speeches like this have been made since the 1980's. Compared to the rest of the world, America is way behind in how they deal with enviroment, American cars aren't even allowed in Holland cos they use so much gas. I'm happy that Obama wants change, and I hope it happens, but for America it needs to happen in America.

Okay.

Why did the Obama campaign have "10 times the budget"? Why did he dominate the media? These are the kinds of questions you're not asking and thus why this piece seems so abstract.

He didn't just pull off one of the biggest least-to-greatest political stories in history by blunt force application of the usual political stuff ie. Hilary Clinton's campaign with the news cycle strategizing, top-down organization etc.. Obama led what is the future of politics - a very, very dispersed organization that feeds off a few key ideas and some smart people who genuinely want to work for the campaign (instead of being hired mercenaries). That's pretty much it. He had a few great ideas that he stuck to time and again and consistently refused to get sucked into the gamesmanship of the Rove disciples on both sides.

The results? Pretty self evident. Look at the "quality of disclosure" rating there. Did it on the level too.

Those of you saying Umair's too abstract should go back and read the article again. Try to fit what you know into what he's saying, because the man's a genius.

And the Obama campaign/Democrats spent waaaaaay less time, energy and money "slandering" than the McCain/Republicans did. The mainstream and independent media pretty much did that job for them (calling shit out when the stench was too bad and then some).

EDIT: Just go here: http://delicious.com/TuckerMax/obama That'll give you a better idea of the details.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 07 November 2008 - 04:32 AM

[Terez]

amphibian, on Nov 6 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

Those of you saying Umair's too abstract should go back and read the article again. Try to fit what you know into what he's saying, because the man's a genius.

I just said that it comes across that way because he doesn't give many details. I know some details, like I said, that fill in those gaps, so I know he's right. But it's not a very useful article to someone who doesn't have any idea how US political campaigns work.

One of the things that was special about Obama's campaign was that he had the black community in particular on his side, and they're self-organizing, and they were motivated this year. Blacks have voted for Democrats for a long time but they've never campaigned this hard before. White civil rights activists have never campaigned this hard before either, and we're just as self-organizing.

[amphibian]

Terez, on Nov 7 2008, 12:35 AM, said:

amphibian, on Nov 6 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

Those of you saying Umair's too abstract should go back and read the article again. Try to fit what you know into what he's saying, because the man's a genius.

I just said that it comes across that way because he doesn't give many details. I know some details, like I said, that fill in those gaps, so I know he's right. But it's not a very useful article to someone who doesn't have any idea how US political campaigns work.

That's a fair criticism.

Quote

One of the things that was special about Obama's campaign was that he had the black community in particular on his side, and they're self-organizing, and they were motivated this year. Blacks have voted for Democrats for a long time but they've never campaigned this hard before. White civil rights activists have never campaigned this hard before either, and we're just as self-organizing.

There's a disconnect between your usage of "self-organizing" and campaigning hard. I don't think it came down to black, white or any ethnic group here. I think it's genuinely just a matter of how well the candidate connected with the individual voter who wasn't necessarily going to split one way or the other based on party alone. Once Palin got picked, every remaining "independent" I knew hopped off the fence - 90% for Obama by the way - and picked a side.

I still do not get why the Republican/Democratic parties still carry so much loyalty. These days we can talk to a candidate ourselves, donate, agitate and organize pretty much on our own. In 50 years, will they still be THE institutions in the US? I doubt it.

[Terez]

amphibian, on Nov 6 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

Terez said:

One of the things that was special about Obama's campaign was that he had the black community in particular on his side, and they're self-organizing, and they were motivated this year. Blacks have voted for Democrats for a long time but they've never campaigned this hard before. White civil rights activists have never campaigned this hard before either, and we're just as self-organizing.

There's a disconnect between your usage of "self-organizing" and campaigning hard. I don't think it came down to black, white or any ethnic group here.

I agree with that to an extent, but I think the excitement of the black community about Obama energized the non-black voters. We all saw the opportunity for making history with Obama, where it wouldn't have been possible with Colin Powell, who might have run against W the first time, or Jesse Jackson, who has a radical and often negative attack character. In the wake of 8 awful years of Bush, it was the right time as well. He had strong opposition from Hillary, but in the end, I think he won because Hillary was polarizing where Obama was inspiring. Part of why he was inspiring is that his precedent was more badly needed.

phib said:

Once Palin got picked, every remaining "independent" I knew hopped off the fence - 90% for Obama by the way - and picked a side.

Now, this is true, of course, but there were a lot of conservative ideologues that jumped ship for Obama that would not have jumped ship for another candidate, like Hillary.

phib said:

I still do not get why the Republican/Democratic parties still carry so much loyalty.

Because the people haven't risen up against them. Tons of voters hate the two-party system, but use it because there is no other real choice. 40% of eligible voters don't bother to vote or even register because they don't feel either party represents them.

phib said:

These days we can talk to a candidate ourselves, donate, agitate and organize pretty much on our own. In 50 years, will they still be THE institutions in the US? I doubt it.

I doubt it also. Our biggest tool is the internet. We the People haven't formed any sort of organized effort to start the internet revolution, but it's right there waiting for us to self-organize. Once we get a nice level of easily accessible government transparency, it's on!

[Osric]

Terez, on Nov 6 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

A Dutchie that doesn't know everything? You are a blight upon your proud country!

Yes I know! I must have been disconnected from the hive mind! Oh well at least I still got my webbed feet.

amphibian, on Nov 7 2008, 05:00 AM, said:

Okay.

Why did the Obama campaign have "10 times the budget"? Why did he dominate the media? These are the kinds of questions you're not asking and thus why this piece seems so abstract.

He didn't just pull off one of the biggest least-to-greatest political stories in history by blunt force application of the usual political stuff ie. Hilary Clinton's campaign with the news cycle strategizing, top-down organization etc.. Obama led what is the future of politics - a very, very dispersed organization that feeds off a few key ideas and some smart people who genuinely want to work for the campaign (instead of being hired mercenaries). That's pretty much it. He had a few great ideas that he stuck to time and again and consistently refused to get sucked into the gamesmanship of the Rove disciples on both sides.

The results? Pretty self evident. Look at the "quality of disclosure" rating there. Did it on the level too.

Those of you saying Umair's too abstract should go back and read the article again. Try to fit what you know into what he's saying, because the man's a genius.

And the Obama campaign/Democrats spent waaaaaay less time, energy and money "slandering" than the McCain/Republicans did. The mainstream and independent media pretty much did that job for them (calling shit out when the stench was too bad and then some).

EDIT: Just go here: http://delicious.com/TuckerMax/obama That'll give you a better idea of the details.

Well first of all I really do think Obama's campaign was better, mccain isnt exactly the most charismatic person, some of the stuff he said was really pathetic. But my point was that link was very general, and just said how good obama was and how much he focuses on changing the world and making everything better. "I dont wanna win I just wanna make it better for YOU! " isnt exactly a big innovation in politics if you ask me. But yeah, I don't disagree with any of it, I just find it lacking in specifics and substance, since I was expecting an explanation of how Obama changed politics, not a piece saying how awesome he is.

I'll definately check out the tucker max link though, I love tucker max.

I also agree with Terez that I don't see why there's only 2 sides to vote for. You basically get to choose for conservative right wing and not so conservative right wing. I pretty much disagree with both candidates on a lot of things (death penalty, foreign policies, immigration). For some reason there isn't even a left wing option. At all.

[Terez]

Progressives are reluctant to pursue their agenda because of the nation's long standing fear of socialism and the influence of the Moral Majority. There is no true left wing because the electorate consistently has not allowed it. I believe that the population distribution map I've posted several times shows why the ideology that is so conservative as to be retro has such a stronghold in the country. The conservative areas are insular by way of being isolated from diversity. There's a lot of potential to change that in the internet, but it's a movement that needs momentum.

[Tapper]

The 20th, on Nov 6 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

Osric, on Nov 6 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

Stuff like the way America kept UN supervisors away from voting boots and basically the disrespect and contempt they showed throughout the entire voting process to the UN and other countries is pretty disheartening.

?????
I hadn't hear about this. And to be honest, my reaction is "as it should be". The UN has no business being involved with a US election in any capacity whatsoever.

With all due respect, I find your statement slightly shortsighted and lacking perspective.

The UN is asked/sees it as its task to monitor the democratic process, be it in undemocratic states that made the change or are a democracy only on the superficial level (like Zimbabwe), new democracies (Russia and the whole slew of Eastern European and West-Asian countries) and established democracies, like the US and western Europe. Of course, the level of democracy, the frequency of fraud and the occurance of incidents varies wildly between all these categories, and I'd say that in the 1st world, it is largely a formality.

If you're a member of the UN, you play by its rules. Truman instituted the UN, you have a seat on the Security Council, your nation has used the UN as a political instrument to further western/ US needs on multiple occasions, for example the Korea War and the various wars of independence in former Yugoslavia.
With that in mind, it seems very clear that you can't just take the privileges and ignore the plights. So yes, it is the UN's business to be involved in a US presidential election.

Secondly, no American (or any) democracy and election is perfect.
4 years ago, iirc, there was a massive debate about exclusion of people with the same last names (and probably birth names) as known criminals but with no criminal record themselves and the ability to prove it, who were none-the-less prevented from voting in I think Florida. This got all the more dire seeing how they might have changed the vote to Gore if they hadn't been excluded.
I'm not saying that's fraud, I'm saying it's a glitch.

It's up to the UN and its impartial observers to monitor and report on the entire process. Legitimation of the election by the UN is important, even if it is a formality. You can be as isolationist as you want, but as long as you're part of the UN, you've got to play by its rules.

[Terez]

Tapper, on Nov 7 2008, 04:59 AM, said:

4 years ago, iirc, there was a massive debate about exclusion of people with the same last names (and probably birth names) as known criminals but with no criminal record themselves and the ability to prove it, who were none-the-less prevented from voting in I think Florida. This got all the more dire seeing how they might have changed the vote to Gore if they hadn't been excluded.

That was 8 years ago.

[Tapper]

Terez, on Nov 7 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

Tapper, on Nov 7 2008, 04:59 AM, said:

4 years ago, iirc, there was a massive debate about exclusion of people with the same last names (and probably birth names) as known criminals but with no criminal record themselves and the ability to prove it, who were none-the-less prevented from voting in I think Florida. This got all the more dire seeing how they might have changed the vote to Gore if they hadn't been excluded.

That was 8 years ago.

Damn. Oh well, still a valid argument