[Shinrei]

But how does that make the US answerable to anything? So we have UN observers. If they see fraud, what are they going to do, submit strong reprimands? Invade the USA?

The US is not alone in acting for its own self interest, using the UN when it's convenient, ignoring the UN when it's not. That's largely why I view the UN as it stands today as relatively useless.

There are plenty of rational reasons for me to be against the UN being involved in any official capacity in US elections. For one thing, why let the UN oversee US elections when another security council member, China, isn't even a democracy? Shouldn't the UN be overseeing the inner workings of the Party then?

I'm not against an international body of nations working together, mind. Nor am I viewing this from a US centrist viewpoint. I feel equally uneasy with the idea of the UN overseeing Japanese, Korean, Russian, British etc etc. elections. Only where democracy is newly forming yet still teetering on the brink, should the UN be there to help.

[HoosierDaddy]

The 20th, on Nov 7 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

But how does that make the US answerable to anything? So we have UN observers. If they see fraud, what are they going to do, submit strong reprimands? Invade the USA?

The US is not alone in acting for its own self interest, using the UN when it's convenient, ignoring the UN when it's not. That's largely why I view the UN as it stands today as relatively useless.

There are plenty of rational reasons for me to be against the UN being involved in any official capacity in US elections. For one thing, why let the UN oversee US elections when another security council member, China, isn't even a democracy? Shouldn't the UN be overseeing the inner workings of the Party then?

I'm not against an international body of nations working together, mind. Nor am I viewing this from a US centrist viewpoint. I feel equally uneasy with the idea of the UN overseeing Japanese, Korean, Russian, British etc etc. elections. Only where democracy is newly forming yet still teetering on the brink, should the UN be there to help.

What about there? Russian, ahem, democracy is fairly "teetering on the brink." Why don't they monitor there? Because just like in the U.S. and China, the U.N. does not have the political power, nor will, to pull it off.

Hopefully, and I'm sure it will happen, Obama will appoint someone to the U.N. who doesn't think it is a complete and utter waste of time (i.e. Michael Bolton, think thats his name), and we can start developing some good political capital.

As an aside, whoever asked about the U.S. backing Israel in a war... don't see how they couldn't. Too much at stake.

[Terez]

The new maps are in for the 2008 election. First, a simple breakdown of McCain states (red states) and Obama states (blue states):



Then, the states' sizes adjusted according to population:



Then adjusted according to number of electoral votes (which are based on population):



Red and blue by county:



Adjusted by population:



Adjusted by color according to margins of victory:



And then by population:

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Shinrei has a very good point, essentially the confederate nature of the UN renders it impotent. Teh only way to solve this is to make it a supra-national body, sort of like a world government/oversight committee. Ultimately, no-one with any power is going to want to do that, so the UN remains about as useful as the League of Nations.

Election-wise, Im pleased Obama won, even if he is too right-wing for my likings. But we'll have to make do.

[amphibian]

Terez, on Nov 7 2008, 02:54 AM, said:

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.

Hitting the other guy only prevents him from getting something - it doesn't help you to get it yourself. Obama ran an entirely different campaign than what McCain and Clinton did and pulled off a pretty big victory.

And what precedent?

Quote

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.

I think that's partly the media attention people like Buckley got. Colbert made fun of the whole thing pretty nicely a while ago, saying that they were doing it just to get attention - which should have been direct at Colbert himself.

Quote

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!

The biggest tool is Dick Cheney. I kid.

Nah, the most important component of changing the two-party system is having people who want to connect with other people and do stuff. I think Obama was a great lodestone for that kind of people and hopefully more candidates out there in the future will be similar. I only hope this doesn't shift slowly back into crowd-pleasers winning offices they don't deserve.

[Mushroom]

[Falco]

Steve Schmidt on the future of Republican party:

The party in the Northeast is all but extinct; the party on the West Coast is all but extinct; the party has lost the mid-South states—Virginia, North Carolina—and the party is in deep trouble in the Rocky Mountain West, and there has to be a message and a vision that is compelling to people in order for them to come back and to give consideration to the Republican Party again

[Mushroom]

What do Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Abe Lincoln all have in common?


A: Nothing yet, just give it some time.







Attention all white folk,
Please report to the cotton fields at 5am tommorow.
Sincerely,
Barak Obama

This post has been edited by Mushroom: 09 November 2008 - 07:58 AM

[Shinrei]

SO, here is the bet we should all lay some money down on:

How many years will it be before Obama's face graces either a coin or a bill in US currency?

US money isn't all old-time presidents. It didn't take Roosevelt or Kennedy very long to find their faces on US coins. Although... they were both dead already, so maybe there's a rule about having to be dead first.

In any case, I think Obama lives to be 78 years old, and his face will appear on money within 5 years of his death.

[amphibian]

Mushroom, on Nov 9 2008, 03:57 AM, said:

Racist stuff and worse

Do not bring that shit into this thread.

There's jokes that can sorta fly and then there's what you put up. I'm not going to abide that at all. If the Secret Service comes knocking, that's going to be a very, very unpleasant week of your life that you will wish never happened.

[Shinrei]

Wow, I didn't even see mushrooms post when I posted my query.

I too disapprove of that joke. It makes the timing of my post look bad, and that's not how I meant it!!!!!

[Aptorian]

What's the difference between Mushume, Wiggles and Snake?

Nothing yet, just give it time... again

I laughed at the jokes. They aren't racist at all, and I've heard far cruder ones the last couple of months. Americans sure are fuzzy about Obama

[Obdigore]

So is that little thing under his picture saying he is banned a lie?

[Aptorian]

Yeah, he's used it ever since people officially realised Mushroom was Hume.

[amphibian]

Aptorian, on Nov 10 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

What's the difference between Mushume, Wiggles and Snake?

Nothing yet, just give it time... again

I laughed at the jokes. They aren't racist at all, and I've heard far cruder ones the last couple of months. Americans sure are fuzzy about Obama

I was talking mostly about the assassination "joke". That's not cool at all. Far fucking from it actually.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 11 November 2008 - 03:18 AM