On November 05 2008 16:29 Jibba wrote: 1% left and he's up 20,000.
Man, I lived in Indiana and I never thought that could happen.
Say what you want about all the flaws in our government, that fact that someone like Obama was able to rise through higher education and to rise from the bottom of the campaign list to become president speaks wonders about the opportunities granted in this country. It is absolutely not consistently enough given in its current state and our efforts to foster it are not acceptable, but it is there for the bright and dedicated to grab. There are those Bush's and the Kennedy's, but across the political spectrum you will find leaders and legislators who have risen up from humble beginnings to become outstanding individuals.
Without trying to take anything away from Obama's remarkable path, that kind of opportunity should be for granted in any first world country. You don't have a monopoly in the world of granting your people the chance to make something of themselves.
Across the board I think you're right, we're probably worse than some other countries including your own, but I honestly don't think Obama would get elected anywhere else in 2008, and not because of race, but because he's young and started so far behind. The odds of him winning when he first started campaigning were incredibly low.
I think he would have been elected in a hell of a lot of places in the world. I will personally guarantee he would have won in canada
'this could only happen in america' is just a feel good mantra
I don't mean starting from the presidential election. He definitely would've. I mean from before the Iowa caucus, when he was 30% behind. I hate the melodrama and length of our elections, but the prospect just seems far fetched without them. It's not about the policies, I certainly didn't think he was the best candidate at that point.
My point is though that marketing and name recognition dont play quite the same role. And even though the actual election is short, the leadership race within the party provides quite a bit of time for a candidate to become familiar.
Alright, well maybe I'm wrong. I was actually thinking of Britain at first and I think there's no way in hell there.
BTW this just in: CNN has too much money to spend.
On November 05 2008 16:29 Jibba wrote: 1% left and he's up 20,000.
Man, I lived in Indiana and I never thought that could happen.
Say what you want about all the flaws in our government, that fact that someone like Obama was able to rise through higher education and to rise from the bottom of the campaign list to become president speaks wonders about the opportunities granted in this country. It is absolutely not consistently enough given in its current state and our efforts to foster it are not acceptable, but it is there for the bright and dedicated to grab. There are those Bush's and the Kennedy's, but across the political spectrum you will find leaders and legislators who have risen up from humble beginnings to become outstanding individuals.
Without trying to take anything away from Obama's remarkable path, that kind of opportunity should be for granted in any first world country. You don't have a monopoly in the world of granting your people the chance to make something of themselves.
Across the board I think you're right, we're probably worse than some other countries including your own, but I honestly don't think Obama would get elected anywhere else in 2008, and not because of race, but because he's young and started so far behind. The odds of him winning when he first started campaigning were incredibly low.
I think he would have been elected in a hell of a lot of places in the world. I will personally guarantee he would have won in canada
'this could only happen in america' is just a feel good mantra
Well, the problem I see is that Obama would have never been in the position to be elected in Canada. Not a fault of Obama's, but rather a fault of our stupid, stupid, stupid electoral system.
Young man wants change. Ok. In order to enact change young man must choose which party to join. In Canada this gives him two real options, Liberal or Conservative , if he wants to have a hope in hell of governing.
So young man joins a party, becomes an elected MP (if he's lucky) and sweats away as a back bencher for some 20 years until his party leader is ready to retire because he's 90 years old and senile. Cool. Young man enters the leadership election. But young man's enthusiastic mantra for change does not fit the party mantra. After all, he's not elected through a primary season of registered voters and 'regular people', he's elected by his base - his party. His views can't be orginal, they need to be regular. He can speak of change, but moreso must speak of only change that appeals directly to his party superiors - crusty old men who don't want to lose an election.
Now by some miracle young man manages to win the leadership race, his views compromised and integrity shredded. Also, young man isn't so young anymore. He has had to 'put in his time' within the party and has become part of the conglomerate moreso than a unique, inspired voice. He is old man now.
And it's election time. Old man doesn't campaign nation-wide. He doesn't speak to voters outside of home-town rallies, shifty debates, and badly written campaign ads. He doesn't speak to voters because they won't be voting for him. They, if he's lucky, will be voting for some other dude in his party whose generic, mashed-potato views should by now be mirrored by his own generic, boiler-plate crap. And if enough of these career politicians get elected, holy hell, he might get to be Prime Minister. He won't be Barack Obama anymore at this point. He'll be Stephen Harper.
That's what I mean when I say that America has an opportunity for a *real* change in direction every four or eight years. A man can run for the nomination and if he appeals to enough of the country, he can win it. With the country's support, he can then win the Presidency and be given a very strong argument for change within his own party. He doesn't have to first become a career politician to even have the chance. We just don't have that here.
The real potential for this that I see involves pure, delicious jackassery.
You know those guys that stand behind the live reporter in public venues making weird faces or tossing up the hand signs? Now imagine one of those guys running into this camera setup, making an obscene gesture, and then running out. The illusion to CNN viewers will be of some jackass materializing out of thin air, yelling "Go Bears! Fuck the Packers! WOOOOOOOOOO" and then vanishing out of sight.
That would be incredible and worthy of this technology.
and somehow a prime minister in canada with a majority government has a higher level of power within his own government than the american president within his
and people wonder why nobody ever wants to talk about canadian politics
On November 05 2008 16:29 Jibba wrote: 1% left and he's up 20,000.
Man, I lived in Indiana and I never thought that could happen.
Say what you want about all the flaws in our government, that fact that someone like Obama was able to rise through higher education and to rise from the bottom of the campaign list to become president speaks wonders about the opportunities granted in this country. It is absolutely not consistently enough given in its current state and our efforts to foster it are not acceptable, but it is there for the bright and dedicated to grab. There are those Bush's and the Kennedy's, but across the political spectrum you will find leaders and legislators who have risen up from humble beginnings to become outstanding individuals.
Without trying to take anything away from Obama's remarkable path, that kind of opportunity should be for granted in any first world country. You don't have a monopoly in the world of granting your people the chance to make something of themselves.
Across the board I think you're right, we're probably worse than some other countries including your own, but I honestly don't think Obama would get elected anywhere else in 2008, and not because of race, but because he's young and started so far behind. The odds of him winning when he first started campaigning were incredibly low.
I think he would have been elected in a hell of a lot of places in the world. I will personally guarantee he would have won in canada
'this could only happen in america' is just a feel good mantra
Well, the problem I see is that Obama would have never been in the position to be elected in Canada. Not a fault of Obama's, but rather a fault of our stupid, stupid, stupid electoral system.
Young man wants change. Ok. In order to enact change young man must choose which party to join. In Canada this gives him two real options, Liberal or Conservative , if he wants to have a hope in hell of governing.
So young man joins a party, becomes an elected MP (if he's lucky) and sweats away as a back bencher for some 20 years until his party leader is ready to retire because he's 90 years old and senile. Cool. Young man enters the leadership election. But young man's enthusiastic mantra for change does not fit the party mantra. After all, he's not elected through a primary season of registered voters and 'regular people', he's elected by his base - his party. His views can't be orginal, they need to be regular. He can speak of change, but moreso must speak of only change that appeals directly to his party superiors - crusty old men who don't want to lose an election.
Now by some miracle young man manages to win the leadership race, his views compromised and integrity shredded. Also, young man isn't so young anymore. He has had to 'put in his time' within the party and has become part of the conglomerate moreso than a unique, inspired voice. He is old man now.
And it's election time. Old man doesn't campaign nation-wide. He doesn't speak to voters outside of home-town rallies, shifty debates, and badly written campaign ads. He doesn't speak to voters because they won't be voting for him. They, if he's lucky, will be voting for some other dude in his party whose generic, mashed-potato views should by now be mirrored by his own generic, boiler-plate crap. And if enough of these career politicians get elected, holy hell, he might get to be Prime Minister. He won't be Barack Obama anymore at this point. He'll be Stephen Harper.
That's what I mean when I say that America has an opportunity for a *real* change in direction every four or eight years. A man can run for the nomination and if he appeals to enough of the country, he can win it. With the country's support, he can then win the Presidency and be given a very strong argument for change within his own party. He doesn't have to first become a career politician to even have the chance. We just don't have that here.
but if you look at trudeau, it parallels obama pretty closely. You have a ~40 year old man, with a legal background (he was actually a law professor until 1965 and was prime minister in 1968)
but he did have like 15 years of experience in politics, so I don't know. I don't think the parties would be quite stupid enough to waste his talents as a backbencher when part of his draw is his youth.
On November 06 2008 02:49 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: and somehow a prime minister in canada with a majority government has a higher level of power within his own government than the american president within his
and people wonder why nobody ever wants to talk about canadian politics
that's a paradox...no one ever talks about canadian politics so the PM gets away with shit, and when he does that no one talks about canadian politics?
On November 06 2008 02:49 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: and somehow a prime minister in canada with a majority government has a higher level of power within his own government than the american president within his
and people wonder why nobody ever wants to talk about canadian politics
The whole system discourages bright, enthusiastic young people like Obama from ever getting involved in our politics in the first place. So really it all boils down not to a question of whether Obama would get elected here, but rather why he'd bother to be in a position to be elected in the first place. =]
edit:
Actually, this is all kind of funny. When I was in university I met a lot of politically minded young people who would be similar to Obama in terms of social empathy and fiscal policy. Well spoken, intelligent, enthusiastic people. A few of them ended up in student politics and served on the university's student union government. They did good things while there.
Enter the real world. With the taste of politics already wetting their appetites, they entered into 'real' politics. Know what a few of them did? They ran as MLAs in provincial elections. And here's the best part: they ran under the NDP. Now before we get into the 0.2% chance of an NDP candidate being elected in Alberta (we vote Conservate with consistency, the main reason being that we sort of always have), we have to wonder why. Well, there aren't exactly open seats for someone to run under the Liberal banner. And the provincial NDP isn't really that scary. It suffers in the same way the provincial Liberals do - name association with its federal counterpart in this region.
And of course they got thoroughly ignored, slandered, and ultimately spanked.
So we wonder why no bright, educated, enthusiastic people don't get involved in our politics. There is no room for them in our system.
On November 06 2008 02:49 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: and somehow a prime minister in canada with a majority government has a higher level of power within his own government than the american president within his
and people wonder why nobody ever wants to talk about canadian politics
that's a paradox...no one ever talks about canadian politics so the PM gets away with shit, and when he does that no one talks about canadian politics?
we rarely have a majority government and the canadian prime minister doesnt really do much in general
canada is very very conservative in that regard, shit doesnt change
On November 06 2008 02:55 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: what the fuck are you talking about? don't link images from websites you don't own, that shit costs them money
save the image and upload it to imageshack (WHICH IS FREE) and then post it
the hell's the matter with you
What is wrong with the kowtow moderators on this site? Since when is it now allowed to post images not from imageshack? Not to mention I know the person who'se website it is.
So wtf are you talking about? Must be the first time anyone ever removed an image using this excuse. Just say you don't want me to post it.
On November 06 2008 02:55 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: what the fuck are you talking about? don't link images from websites you don't own, that shit costs them money
save the image and upload it to imageshack (WHICH IS FREE) and then post it
the hell's the matter with you
What is wrong with the kowtow moderators on this site? Since when is it now allowed to post images not from imageshack? Not to mention I know the person who'se website it is.
So wtf are you talking about? Must be the first time anyone ever removed an image using this excuse. Just say you don't want me to post it.
you're dumb as a sack of bricks, this is a very very common thing
as if i'm gonna check and make sure that every single person who posts a link from another site knows the person who owns that site and they're ok with it
it costs the other site money, and imageshack is free, so don't link directly from other sites
this isnt fucking arbitrary and nobody's picking on you, you stupid faggot
EPT
