[Illuyankas]

Actually, the full truth is a little extended. What not a lot of people know is the movie The Thing was a documentary, detailing the escape of a McDonalds experiment that subsumed and took over the rescue team, including Kurt Russell, one of the two who managed to keep his identity but not his complete control. Kurt has been infecting various actors and actresses in his career (Goldie Hawn was a catastrophic meltdown, obviously) up until he starred alongside Halle Berry and Steven Seagal in Executive Decision. While able to infect Halle and leading her to destroy her film career in a downward spiral ending in Catwoman, Kurt Russell's attempt to subsume Steven Seagal failed miserably as the vast inhuman organism that is the Seagal subsumed him and the rest of the Thing in return. Robbed of all motivation, the Seagal-tainted Thing split off from Kurt Russell, reformed itself, and entered showbusiness as Lady Gaga.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[Obdigore]

 Jusentantaka, on 16 April 2010 - 04:58 PM, said:

No no, he got left on the other plane when the rest of the people were trying to get onto Air Force One. duh.

[Epiph]

 Aptorian, on 27 March 2010 - 07:06 AM, said:

American Malazites, please tell me that the Republicans have other presidential candidates than Palin. Palin is everywhere in the media but I don't see any sane counter part to hear from the republican party.

Texas governor Rick Perry. And that frightens me way more than Palin.

[Jusentantaka]

He's from texas though. Bush is from texas. The dems wont even need to spend money to get the message across and the voters out. Hell, the dems could just post that article Martin Luther style all over the country and rock a 9 point victory. The party of The Old White Man Afraid of Change can suck a giant dick, and the longer the party clings to that platform, the more irrelevant they will become.

[worry]

[Epiph]

 Jusentantaka, on 20 April 2010 - 03:04 AM, said:

He's from texas though. Bush is from texas. The dems wont even need to spend money to get the message across and the voters out. Hell, the dems could just post that article Martin Luther style all over the country and rock a 9 point victory. The party of The Old White Man Afraid of Change can suck a giant dick, and the longer the party clings to that platform, the more irrelevant they will become.

You would think that, but conventional knowledge in Texas was that Kay Bailey Hutchison would rape him in the Republican gubernatorial primary, but Perry is an excellent campaigner. He has the grassrootsy, Tea Party appeal, but also conventional Republican appeal. I think, if he decides to run, he may be the best candidate the Republicans could field...which isn't saying all that much, he's awful. It boggles the mind that he keeps getting reelected, because it seems like the majority of Texans think he's a joke (clearly, this is not the case). Never-the-less, that article is compelling, and while I would hope that America would not be idiot to elect another Republican from Texas...well, the Tea Party is constantly eroding my faith in the rationality of the American public.

[Jusentantaka]

Texas also maintained a favorable view of dubbya even when the rest of the country had him at what... 40%? So I wouldn't be betting on his interstate appeal any time soon. But the people are Dumb, and 2 years is apparently ancient history to them.

Also... compelling? you mean compelling to vomit in horror and disgust?

[McLovin]

 Epiph, on 20 April 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

It boggles the mind that he keeps getting reelected, because it seems like the majority of Texans think he's a joke (clearly, this is not the case).

Actually, 61% of Texans voted against him last election, but there were 3-4 other candidates on the ballot, so he won by a plurality. No one could unite the opposition.

EDIT - and no, I don't see Perry as a credible national candidate. Not without years of image rehab. I think he knows it too.

This post has been edited by McLovin: 20 April 2010 - 04:32 PM

[Tsundoku]

 McLovin, on 20 April 2010 - 04:29 PM, said:

 Epiph, on 20 April 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

It boggles the mind that he keeps getting reelected, because it seems like the majority of Texans think he's a joke (clearly, this is not the case).

Actually, 61% of Texans voted against him last election, but there were 3-4 other candidates on the ballot, so he won by a plurality. No one could unite the opposition.EDIT - and no, I don't see Perry as a credible national candidate. Not without years of image rehab. I think he knows it too.

The joys of first-part-the-post elections. Also, you don't have compulsory voting over there do you? So I wonder what voter turnouts were in those elections? And not just registered (WTF?) voters, but however many eligible people there are in the electorate. For us that's all citizens and permanent residents over 18.

So if you run the numbers it may turn out that bug-a-lugs won with a piddly 20% (or even less) of votes from the eligible electorate.

I genuinely wonder what would happen in American politics if The Beyonder waved his hand and all of a sudden you had compulsory voting? And maybe even a preferential or proportional representation system? Would the electorate polarise (hmmpphh, right wing and extreme right wing ...) to the Dems and the Reps?

Or would there be a plethora of minor parties forming coalitions willy-nilly? Like half the democratic world. Unfortunately.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 20 April 2010 - 04:53 PM

[Jusentantaka]

I think if we had compulsory voting, we'd see more 2000 election bullshit more than anything else, with a near-even break between voters. The dems would fragment though, between center and center left (there's a very sizeable number of democrats who are left of the party line, really, there are), and the repubs would explode into LibertarianAssholes, FacistAssholes and TeaBaggingAssholes and a small minority of maybe 2 or 3 seats in congress of 'Back In My Day, We FUCKING HATED COMMUNIST POLICE STATES AND DIDN'T SUCK ONE'S COCK LEFT AND RIGHT AND LET THEM OWN PART OF OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!, AND WHEN ONE OF OUR PRESIDENTS INSTITUTED BULLSHIT LIKE THAT, HE HAD THE DAMN DECENCY TO RESIGN. FUCK.' Party, who would have a damn angry, little, bald Vietnamese woman as one of their elected members.

But I really don't think it would be efficient for our country. We'd have to massively expand the already incompetent and useless legislature to have parliamentary style representation (that's basically what this comes to, right? The same as the UK has-ish?) And no one wants that.



And I remember making a 'why do "people" not vote' thread I think. Once upon a time

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 20 April 2010 - 05:57 PM

[Tsundoku]

 Jusentantaka, on 20 April 2010 - 05:27 PM, said:

But I really don't think it would be efficient for our country. We'd have to massively expand the already incompetent and useless legislature to have parliamentary style representation (that's basically what this comes to, right? The same as the UK has-ish?) And no one wants that.

And I remember making a 'why do "people" not vote' thread I think. Once upon a time

Fair enough. can't recall your thread sorry, might have been one of the times I was away. Will have a look later.

Why people don't vote can pretty much be summed up in a few short points:
1. Too lazy/apathetic
2. Too ignorant or just stupid
3. Believe their 1 vote won't change a thing.

The first 2 you can't do much about and frankly in their case maybe it's better they kept their votes to themselves where they can't fuck things up any further. But in the third case maybe it would be better if they understood that a drop in the ocean can make a difference?

Still, anyone who doesn't vote loses the right to complain about government and the electoral process.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 21 April 2010 - 02:37 AM

[Jusentantaka]

 Sombra, on 21 April 2010 - 12:40 AM, said:

Still, anyone who doesn't vote loses the right to complain about government and the electoral process.

If that were true, the internet would be 100% porn, instead of just 99.5%.

ps: tehz thread: http://forum.malazan...showtopic=16709

[Morgoth]

I don't know. A good way to encourage more Americans to vote might be to change the voting system so that the candidate who gets 50.1 % in a state doesnt win every seat in the state.

I mean, why would you at all vote in the presidential election if you're a democrat living in say Alaska? Your vote is about as pointless then as it gets.

Now, I understand things are different in a two party system rather than a multiple party system, but in Norway for instance, if a region has 10 representatives and one party gets 60%, two get 15% and the remaining share the other 5%, then generally the distribution will be 6-2-2 I think. That way your vote matters even though you're not voting for the most popular party.

In addition, such a system would make it easier to run as a third party.

[Tsundoku]

@Juicytaco
Ah, yep, I perused that thread way back at the start when it seemed to me to be more American-specific, so I figured I didn't have much to add. ("But that's never stopped you before!" you say ... )
And if teh interwebz were 100% pr0n, would this necessarily be a bad thing?

@Morgy
Yeh, Prez elections should be whomever gets the most votes across the nation, with no regional voting differences. 1 ballot paper with however many names, and to keep it in sync with the rest of the USAnian system just put a 1, a tick or a cross next to your preferred candidate. Piece of piss.
None of this "electoral college" bullshit, which is quite possibly THE most stupid electoral process in history, and this includes trial by combat.

And yes, I am aware trial by combat was also used to dis/prove guilt.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 21 April 2010 - 02:48 AM

[Jusentantaka]

well, if you're from alaska, your vote is as pointless as it gets anyway, so no one gives a fuck up there (with only three votes in the electoral college, the dems would have to get 1/3 of the vote to get one in their favor, and that's not happening.

With just the two parties, it really won't change anything though. republicrats from blue states will cancel the democrats from red states and the only difference will be that the final numbers somewhat more closely represent the popular vote. And the last time the senate tried to change electoral policy (though they moved to abolish the electoral college period, it seems to come to the same result) they got jammed up in some of that oldschool bipartisan obstructionism and went no where with all the hicks whining and bitching about how it would make their states irrelevant to national politics if they only got to put however many hundreds of thousands of votes into the mix, rather than the all impressive THREE out of 540. Waste of time better spent negotiating a nuclear power and trade treaty with Indonesia.

If we had a viable third party somewhere, it might mean something to change it, but uhm... a coral of tumbleweeds could out do any likely third party by a good five million votes.


*** Bring on the trial by combat. Odds for betting determined by poll standings before hand. Gore! Gore! Gore! Gore! Gore!

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 21 April 2010 - 02:49 AM

[Epiph]

 McLovin, on 20 April 2010 - 04:29 PM, said:

 Epiph, on 20 April 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

It boggles the mind that he keeps getting reelected, because it seems like the majority of Texans think he's a joke (clearly, this is not the case).

Actually, 61% of Texans voted against him last election, but there were 3-4 other candidates on the ballot, so he won by a plurality. No one could unite the opposition.

EDIT - and no, I don't see Perry as a credible national candidate. Not without years of image rehab. I think he knows it too.

Oh, I totally forgot about Strayhorn running that year. I still don't think Bell could have won, even without independent interference.

[McLovin]

True that - Bell campaigned like he was under anesthesia the whole time. Even the national party abandoned him.

Interestingly, Perry is on the cover of the latest Newsweek, talking about why Texas is so great, he's not running for national office in 2012 (read: he's considering running for national office in 2012). I like his boots that have the San Jacinto battle flag on them, though - pure style, our Governor Goodhair is.