On January 26 2007 22:44 uhjoo wrote: just to reiterate, many of the shortcomings of the american democratic system flow from the first-past-the-post electoral system which elects winners based on a simple majority. this system encourages two party systems as well as a "move toward the center," meaning parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of their policy platforms.
thus, other factors become more important in elections: 1) propaganda and media play 2) "dirty" politics and "image" maintenance 3) stupid, staged debates that reveal little if anything about candidate policy platforms, the vast majority of which are never enacted even if the candidate wins
you fix this first by making parties actually count for (and stand for) something, and by widening the scope of political voices that are heard in the policymaking arena. proportional representation does this much better than what we have now. everyone has been crying for a real third party, but it just won't happen with our electoral system being a FPTF simple majority system.
obama and hillary, no matter what their personal strengths and beliefs, are players in this game and have no choice but to play along. they both are greatly disadvantaged as they are not white males (imo it matters little what the polls say, wait until election day when american voters vote with their true gendered and racist beliefs, wanting someone who "looks presidential"). americans are much more likely to want to vote for someone who looks like mccain or edwards.
Yeah I'm definitely not going to vote for Hillary, or Obama because of how they look. It has nothing to do with the ideals they hold. Where do you get off spewing this BS anyway? There are these people called conservatives who in general believe in less government spending and more taxcuts. Ever heard of that before?
EDIT: I don't know much about the platforms of either candidate. In my opinion, voting for the candidate with the views that match your own is the best way to go, but ability to pronounce/speak/combine words to make a logical sentence is generally an indication of intelligence. There are always exceptions of course. Besides, you can be the smartest person in the world, but if you can't show it or use it, what's the point?
Agreed. There IS a correlation between speaking ability and intelligence. But a correlation is just that, a correlation. Exceptions always exist.
And I have to say, it's definitely enlightening seeing how little we really know about these two top candidates, especially Obama. That's already like three people who thought he's a Muslim. I assume some people on here even still believe the ridiculous story about him being educated in a madrassa.
It's a sign of the ridiculousness of what the media chooses to focus on (especially this far in advance of an election), but also how disconnected we all are. It's really not a good sign for Obama, that half the people can't really say what he stands for and the other half have some very big misconceptions about him.
This bizarre "media focus" is what all politicans have to fight against to really show their substance (Democrats in particular since they're fighting a losing battle in terms of money and image).
Obama sucks, besides his economic ignorance (market interventionist), he also supports partial-birth abortions (where the baby is delivered and has its brain sucked out). Steve Forbes was the closest the US ever came to political intelligence
On January 26 2007 17:17 Servolisk wrote: Besides being a qualified student there are other ways to get into prestigious schools and come out with degrees. It was Yale though.
mmmm...bush's speech giving skills and education don't change the fact that his administration has failed every test it had. like katrina and the iraq war and the war on terror.
On January 27 2007 01:02 geometryb wrote: mmmm...bush's speech giving skills and education don't change the fact that his administration has failed every test it had. like katrina and the iraq war and the war on terror.
So? I think we're all aware of this fact, besides it has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton. PS the war against Iraq is a part of the war on terror .
On January 26 2007 22:44 uhjoo wrote: just to reiterate, many of the shortcomings of the american democratic system flow from the first-past-the-post electoral system which elects winners based on a simple majority. this system encourages two party systems as well as a "move toward the center," meaning parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of their policy platforms.
thus, other factors become more important in elections: 1) propaganda and media play 2) "dirty" politics and "image" maintenance 3) stupid, staged debates that reveal little if anything about candidate policy platforms, the vast majority of which are never enacted even if the candidate wins
you fix this first by making parties actually count for (and stand for) something, and by widening the scope of political voices that are heard in the policymaking arena. proportional representation does this much better than what we have now. everyone has been crying for a real third party, but it just won't happen with our electoral system being a FPTF simple majority system.
obama and hillary, no matter what their personal strengths and beliefs, are players in this game and have no choice but to play along. they both are greatly disadvantaged as they are not white males (imo it matters little what the polls say, wait until election day when american voters vote with their true gendered and racist beliefs, wanting someone who "looks presidential"). americans are much more likely to want to vote for someone who looks like mccain or edwards.
Yeah I'm definitely not going to vote for Hillary, or Obama because of how they look. It has nothing to do with the ideals they hold. Where do you get off spewing this BS anyway? There are these people called conservatives who in general believe in less government spending and more taxcuts. Ever heard of that before?
I thought uhjoo's post was great. Policy is really all that matters, but is policy even going to be discussed? Not really. There are obviously differances in the parties and differant demographics with differant values, but these people are being appealed to based on image and propaganda rather than policy. Conservatives? The Bush administration has spent more money then even the drunkest democrat would dream of, and regardless of what anybody says, if you are pushing a country into debt you are essentially raising taxes. Point being these people called conservatives are not voting based on policy but rather the image of the Bush administration that has been created by extensive propaganda, hence uhjoo's point.
On January 26 2007 23:19 QuietIdiot wrote: The fucking south is gonna screw over him and hilary. (America, sadly, is not ready for a minority nor a woman leader...I think Hilary is a cold bitch, STILL A LITTLE STINGY ABOUT THE SNUGGLY FUN EH?)
The Democrats do not need the south. They simply need to hold the northeast, and cali, and pick up a few more states in the midwest, and maybe Florida. (Politically, Florida isn't a typical southern state)
The Democrats shouldn't even want the South's votes. The South has stood in the way of pretty much every liberal and progressive movement in the history of the United States. Fuck the South.
Barak Obama... Hero of Black Race Top Candidate of 2007 United States of America Election... His journey just beginning but I will follow him to the end...he will meet opponent Hilary Clinton in final Election and bring us incredible policies to succeed in massive landslide victory for United States of America...it will be something I will never forget most unforgettable moment...
"And what has Congress debated, the past few years? Gay marriage. Abortion. French Fries: Congress renamed them. Twice. Flag burning. Billions in corporate welfare subsidies." lol
On January 26 2007 22:44 uhjoo wrote: just to reiterate, many of the shortcomings of the american democratic system flow from the first-past-the-post electoral system which elects winners based on a simple majority. this system encourages two party systems as well as a "move toward the center," meaning parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of their policy platforms.
thus, other factors become more important in elections: 1) propaganda and media play 2) "dirty" politics and "image" maintenance 3) stupid, staged debates that reveal little if anything about candidate policy platforms, the vast majority of which are never enacted even if the candidate wins
you fix this first by making parties actually count for (and stand for) something, and by widening the scope of political voices that are heard in the policymaking arena. proportional representation does this much better than what we have now. everyone has been crying for a real third party, but it just won't happen with our electoral system being a FPTF simple majority system.
obama and hillary, no matter what their personal strengths and beliefs, are players in this game and have no choice but to play along. they both are greatly disadvantaged as they are not white males (imo it matters little what the polls say, wait until election day when american voters vote with their true gendered and racist beliefs, wanting someone who "looks presidential"). americans are much more likely to want to vote for someone who looks like mccain or edwards.
Yeah I'm definitely not going to vote for Hillary, or Obama because of how they look. It has nothing to do with the ideals they hold. Where do you get off spewing this BS anyway? There are these people called conservatives who in general believe in less government spending and more taxcuts. Ever heard of that before?
I thought uhjoo's post was great. Policy is really all that matters, but is policy even going to be discussed? Not really. There are obviously differances in the parties and differant demographics with differant values, but these people are being appealed to based on image and propaganda rather than policy. Conservatives? The Bush administration has spent more money then even the drunkest democrat would dream of, and regardless of what anybody says, if you are pushing a country into debt you are essentially raising taxes. Point being these people called conservatives are not voting based on policy but rather the image of the Bush administration that has been created by extensive propaganda, hence uhjoo's point.
In addition, Bush was responsible for creating new government agencies as well as a domestic spying program. So he didn't fulfill small government either.
,,, whats wrong with the media today. It's scary to see them do stories like this and know the amount of leverage they have on the outcome of elections. ::sigh::
So the stories I have heard on NEWS are We have Barrack Obama tied in with "Osama". It's just 1 letter off! We have him portrayed with similarities between him and the Iranian. Any others that are ridiculous yet will work?
Apparently they don't have enough dirt on the guy yet so they have to bring him down by relating the coloured Obama to a world famous terrorist and the Iranian president.
Obama doesn't have a chance imo.
Then again: What white male can they send up against Guliani and McCain? Biden?
EDIT: I don't know much about the platforms of either candidate. In my opinion, voting for the candidate with the views that match your own is the best way to go, but ability to pronounce/speak/combine words to make a logical sentence is generally an indication of intelligence. There are always exceptions of course. Besides, you can be the smartest person in the world, but if you can't show it or use it, what's the point?
Agreed. There IS a correlation between speaking ability and intelligence. But a correlation is just that, a correlation. Exceptions always exist.
And I have to say, it's definitely enlightening seeing how little we really know about these two top candidates, especially Obama. That's already like three people who thought he's a Muslim. I assume some people on here even still believe the ridiculous story about him being educated in a madrassa.
It's a sign of the ridiculousness of what the media chooses to focus on (especially this far in advance of an election), but also how disconnected we all are. It's really not a good sign for Obama, that half the people can't really say what he stands for and the other half have some very big misconceptions about him.
This bizarre "media focus" is what all politicans have to fight against to really show their substance (Democrats in particular since they're fighting a losing battle in terms of money and image).
Yeah. I remember catching a clip of cnn ( which I try to avoid), where they were trying to link obama and the leader of Iran because they wore similar clothes.
I think the problem is the overabundance of marketing and the strong links between marketing media and politics. Politicians are allowed to get away with soundbites and slogans.
To the Canadians. Remember any slogans from the last election?
Politicians have to make concessions to powerful corporations to gain or maintain power.
Media wont ask difficult questions, and wont go hard on a person until he has fallen out of favour with enough people that they dont care about losing viewers. Think how many years it took for mainstream media to start publicly attacking Bush? Even the "left-leaning" network cnn has not really said anything negative about Bush outside of the last two years. And now they are doing it because the conservative audience has partially gone over to fox, and they want younger viewers. Which means six years of stations doing stories like "Grapes: As good for you as you thought" instead of actually...I dont know, doing news? The President started a war, is repealing civil liberties, had no developed plans outside of invading Iraq, led his country into an economic recession, and the media is going: "Celphones: Are they really so bad for you?"
Now the media is starting to calve into pro-democratic and pro-conservative - or more accurately anti-democratic and anti-conservative stations and shows. This, if possible, is even worse than the state of the media right now. We have "no-spin zones" and "hard hitting questions" with the end result that the viewers of news split along political lines and provide even less motivation - and more difficulty - for a station to step out of its attack party A stance.
The media holds no one accountable, except for the ever-dangerous grapes and celphones - and is rapidly losing an independant perspective; to the point where it is tying itself to politics and power. Instead of helping out the citizens, it is quickly becoming politically-driven propoganda.
If comedy shows do less of a disservice to the people in the realm of politics, we know that something has gone horribly wrong.
There is more of a focus on nationalism and "trust the leader" than on improving the country - this is the source of arrogance most often cited. It is a refusal to acknoledge even glaring problems with the country as it stands because of hammered in nationalism and a superpower oriented supremacy complex. Faith, trust and optimism are seen as positive traits, while questioning, inquiry, pessimism or disbelief are not good to have.
On top of this you have a highly isolationist country, who still wants to control or influence other countries. The end result is that the "international community" is seen as an antagonist. If they disagree with America, then the international community is being wishy-washy. It is america who is being decisive.
Now we get to disdain of human rights. American politicians have admitted to torture and what do the citizenry do? Nothing. Unless they are watching a pro-democratic news channel, they wont see it. Those who do watch anti-conservative channels see it as just another "attack point" in a mindless game of lets win the argument instead of actually trying to stop torture from occuring. Freedom of information is restriced. Faith is once again put in "the leader." People are held against their will without trial, without a lawyer, and often without even a specific charge. These people may also be tortured. Outsiders (homosexuals, non-christians, immigrants) are seen as something to unify against. This is a bad thing.
More? The potential for fraudulent elections to occur in the future. The mingling of religion, politics, media and marketing into one. Protection of corporations.
,,, whats wrong with the media today. It's scary to see them do stories like this and know the amount of leverage they have on the outcome of elections. ::sigh::
Obama '08
wtf? they EVEN mentioned that axis of evil nonsense. Political Entertainment has come a long ways I tell you. (plus that dude talked like he had a 9-iron up his ass)
Fortunately the primaries are a while off yet, but with Obama and Clinton leading the race, I smell another GOP victory in 2008 coming around the corner, when their party is able to cast off the Bush legacy and offer their lineup of superstar candidates.
In the propaganda stage of elections, one has to read very carefully between the lines to get an approximate gauge of a candidate's character, as official platform is next to worthless. And after mildly supporting Bush in 2000 I no longer trust my judgement on these things. The upcoming French elections are more interesting anyhow.
,,, whats wrong with the media today. It's scary to see them do stories like this and know the amount of leverage they have on the outcome of elections. ::sigh::
Obama '08
wtf? they EVEN mentioned that axis of evil nonsense. Political Entertainment has come a long ways I tell you. (plus that dude talked like he had a 9-iron up his ass)
Yeah, there's that "liberal bias" with CNN.
You can debate media bias and dirty politics, but I am absolutely positive of this fundamental difference between the parties: Republicans attack Democrats a LOT for really stupid, irrelevant things. Just remember the top five things that you remember the Republicans using to attack Kerry... I'll bet at least three of them had nothing to do with his ideas or stances on the issues. The media plays right into this strategy.
At least the Democrats, as scattered and weak-willed as they are at the moment, are usually trying to discuss real policy issues when they attack the Republicans. Sure, there are nutjobs on both sides, but the Republican nutjobs have a lot more sway over the party.
To take an example of how the media deals with these issues, consider if Obama were a Republican. Well, it's hard to find someone who is the Republican equivalent of Obama, but I guess as far as presidential contenders for 2008, you could take John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani. Now go ahead and see if you can find even close to the same amount of ridiculous stories about any of those guys as you find about Hillary and Obama. And McCain's been around for YEARS.
It's not really even the Republicans' fault. Sure, they do spend more time digging up dirt and making wild conjectures, but it's the media's job to sort out what's true and what's important. But today's media usually takes the bait, no matter how silly or far-fetched the story. And they do this, regardless of party affiliation.
And don't even get me started on the dozens of (predominantly Republican) lawmakers who are being indicted or investigated. Even congressman Bill Jefferson, a Democrat, who's as crooked as they come, gets almost no play from the mainstream media when he's clearly about to be sent to jail. It's a sad state of affairs.
On January 27 2007 11:37 MoltkeWarding wrote: Fortunately the primaries are a while off yet, but with Obama and Clinton leading the race, I smell another GOP victory in 2008 coming around the corner, when their party is able to cast off the Bush legacy and offer their lineup of superstar candidates.
I agree with this entirely. I would also like to bring up an incredibly important point here that no one seems to be acknowledging. Hilary is a woman, and Obama is black.
Now I'm not calling American's racist, trust me. I'm saying, federal elections in the states are almost always won narrowly. Do you really think that a person of a minority group can win when the elections are so close between candidates that are so similar?
I'd also like to throw out an FYI. If John McCain runs, he'll kick any potential dem with ease. Hilary, Obama, or faceless white guys alike.
EPT
.
