2008 elections today!

[curious]

if the elections took place now who would you vote for. feel free to discuss your reasons why but more or less i'm intrigued by the viability of the announced/speculated canidates.

[dteowner]

Dubya has probably ruined Republican chances to retain the presidency, but Hillary might be sufficiently polarizing to offset the damage if the Dems choose to put her on the ballot. Really, there are no dominant candidates for either party at this time, IMO.

[Corwin]

Unfortunately, this only applies to the Americans!! For the rest of us, we need a 'Who Cares' response!! :)

[dteowner]

You mean the entire world doesn't focus on the glamorous life in the old US of A? :)

[txa1265]

You mean the entire world doesn't focus on the glamorous life in the old US of A? :)

Only from a negative perspective - how we're ruining world culture, how we aren't giving them enough, or giving them too much, or being too 'world involved' or too isolationist ... or whatever.

[Myrthos]

Oohh Touchy! ;)

[txa1265]

Naw - this type of speculation is always good for controversy, so I'll just stir it up a bit for the international crew so they don't feel left out ;)

[Corwin]

But, I want to be left out!! :biggrin:

[Maylander]

I'm hoping for Hillary; too many men in suits in politics today. People in general are losing interest in politics, and even though getting a female president won't solve that over night, I personally think it would be refreshing.

[titus]

He hilary?? no change of it, she would be the first female president from america, and besides who thinks about hilary thinks about Bill. Who thinks of Bill thinsk of Monica Lewinsky.
I want Arnold for President :D

[Corwin]

He has as much chance as Monica!! :biggrin:

[txa1265]

I want Arnold for President :D

Minor 'not born in America' issues ... ineligible.

As for Hilary - remember that she was responsible for some of the ideas behind the highly socialist stuff Bill tried to do in his first two years (when he had democratic controlled senate & house) - it has only been to further her own agenda that she has appeared to moderate.

That is a general thing I hate - I have watched the former governor of our state (Romney) try to appease the ultra-right wingnuts to gain favor ... which makes me dislike him. Running based on what he has actually been doing here - very moderate stuff, really populist - would have been better for him and the country.

[Corwin]

Hey, I just hate politicians; they're all the same!! :)

[magerette]

That's right--not only that, most of them are lawyers as well. :)

I think it's time for the Mother Ship to land, myself.

[JemyM]

I am not an American, but I would go for Obama for two reasons. First, I would like to see a democrat this time around. Democrats appear much closer to European politics than the Republicans. After the Bush flop, I believe the releation with Europe needs to be improved.

Also I would say Obama, primarily because he belongs to a minority. I believe that allows him to greater understand the rights of minorities. There's alot of intolerant crap going on over there which I feel should be below western society. I would say that Hillary Clinton is an alternative, but her opinion about computergames are not so nice.

[Bartacus]

Obama doesn't stand much chance imo. partly muslim and went on catholic schools what isn't really a good thing for conservative America. I think Hilary has the largest chance to be the next candidate for the democrats, but I'm not sure she'd win. The former major of NY is a republican but still someone from the city (so not to conservative). This makes him more acceptable for the midfield. I believe as I expressed on the Dot before, that about 80% of the people already know for whom they are gonna vote -> it's a fifty/fifty for the both parties and it's that previously mentioned midfield that needs to be convinced.

Still I voted for Hilary, also for the reasons Maylander already expressed

[titus]

what is hilarys opinion about computergames?

[Pfandpirat]

I think that Hillary has the biggest chance to win the election. She is somewhat popular and she´s female (first female president ever if she should win) and huge parts of the population are at least partially unhappy with the republicans and/or G.W. Bush.
People also tend to vote for a change after one party reigned for some time and this was the second successive presidency of a republican candidate.

[JemyM]

what is hilarys opinion about computergames?

http://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+videogame

[Dez]

Well most top politicans are usually the biggest hypocrites on earth...

[Moriendor]

Well most top politicans are usually the biggest hypocrites on earth...

True that. I could swear that I recently saw a video of Hilly here playing GTA with a special hot coffee mod where all the male pedestrians were called Billy and the female ones Monica and where you could cut the male NPCs dicks off and weird crap like that! You could hear the UT-like in-game announcer's voice yell out "killing spree" and "rampage" every three seconds or so... there's peaceful Hilly for ya! :biggrin:

[magerette]

Well, I didn't need another strike against her socialist a$$, but that really blows me away. Obviously while Bill wasn't inhaling, she wasn't busy sucking on a crack pipe.

Edit: re: JemyM's search post.

Edit; Has anybody figured out that I am one of the 2 McCain votes?:)

[dteowner]

I'm just hoping that the Ice Queen is polarizing enough to turn away the moderates. I don't see where the Republicans will be able to overcome all the second guessing on the war, though, so I'd say the Ice Queen is as good a bet as any, which is scary.

[magerette]

Canada looks better all the time.

[dteowner]

Although I'd be sacrificing some good hockey, I'd recommend Mexico. Warmer, the border crossing would be far easier, plus all the Mexicans have moved to Indianapolis.

[curious]

if the elections were down to just mccain and hillary i'd opt for mccain. i've always respected the guy though i've never voted for a republican (unless you count ross perot in 1996) even though after turning 18 until 2 years ago i was registered one. now i'm registered green. i still think hillary has absolutely no chance unless she somehow has made a pact with satan:) not that it has any bearing but all 4 votes for her on this poll so far are from people living outside the u.s.

that said i hope barack obama can tackle the many obstacles he faces as i think he would make a fine president.

[Corwin]

You could all move to OZ!! :) Big news here last night was a clip of Hilarious singing your National Anthem totally off key!!

[magerette]

And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us...

curious wrote:
"i still think hillary has absolutely no chance unless she somehow has made a pact with satan"

I wouldn't rule that out. ;)

[Corwin]

We don't hate you, just your politicians!! Don't worry though, we hate our own as well!! :)

[txa1265]

And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us...

The US is on an unprecedented global stage in our proverbial underwear while the rest of the world sit unshaven and unshowered on their couches eating chips and tossing criticisms of how we could be better. Some are right, perhaps many are right, but many others could use a little 'mirror gazing'.

[curious]

or preferably 'shoe gazing';)

[dteowner]

All you youngsters can skip this one since you probably won't know the reference...

I'd like to teach the World to sing
in detuned harmony
I'd like to buy the World a phaser
And make it reverb-y.

Oh yeah, I've got a glowing future in marketing jingles and international politics.

[Corwin]

Perhaps, but I prefer Pepsi!! :biggrin:

[magerette]

The US is on an unprecedented global stage in our proverbial underwear while the rest of the world sit unshaven and unshowered on their couches eating chips and tossing criticisms of how we could be better. Some are right, perhaps many are right, but many others could use a little 'mirror gazing'.

I was of course, being sarcastic....although I do find myself embarassed by Hillary and all her ilk, (and Britney Spears and Halliburton and a whole bunch of other things which are pretty well expressed by the underwear simile. )
Your point is still well taken. All these rings of the media circus are there to sell papers, or whatever. They have as little to do with real life and what the average american is as a superbowl commercial has to do with sports.

@dte
Don't quit yer day job, but that was kind of a catchy rhyme:)

@Corwin
You have politicians in Oz??? Is that something to do with Australia leading the world in number of poisonous species?:)

[Corwin]

I hadn't ever considered that, but you might just be on to something here; politicians and poisonous species!! I do see the similarities!! :) Oh, and I didn't think BS wore underwear, or am I missing something again!! :)

[Danicek]

Even though I'm not an US resident, I would like to see Hillary Clinton as the new US president. However there may come some other interesting candidates.

BTW (I know I could look this up somewhere) - would this be your first female president?

[txa1265]

BTW (I know I could look this up somewhere) - would this be your first female president?

Yes - there hasn't been a female Pres or Vice Pres yet.

It will be interesting to see how Hillary gets handled - in the NY Senate race she was given a 'pass' by the press for being the 'former first lady' and got no real tough questioning or investigating ... and she has been able to shrug off anything from her past with a simple 'we've already been through *that* before'. I just wonder whether or not those looking at these things will dig deeper and ask tougher questions this time - not that I'm looking to rehash endlessly stupid little things from 30 years ago like happened last time 'round ...

[Bartacus]

Talking about election fever

In june this year wel will choose a new federal governement (yes, we are a lot smaller then the US, but Belgium consists out of two parts. A Flemmish one and I don't know the English word for the other part (Waals -> Welsh doesn't sound right for our UK friends I think)
This will be an important one for us, due to the fact that some parties will try to get more authority (power) to the parts instead of the inclarity we are in now. Sometimes they are 3 ministers responsable on the different levels for the same stuff.
Oh yeah a more or less important fact is that in Belgium it's still your duty to vote not just your right. For me it's a little different cause my firm supports the voting PC's. (I have to work on election day)

[titus]

For who are you going to vote Bartacus?
And how can you vote if you have to work?
I am thinking about voting for Dedecker because he is also for the fraction of Belgium in Flanders and Walonnië.
can't find the points of his party, sadly enough

[magerette]

I find it really sad that I know almost nothing about your government in Belgium. By federal, do you mean president, elected representatives, etc? How many parties do you have?Are you facing any of the difficulties with imigration that the Netherlands and U.S. are? Unless something pretty earthshaking happens over there, we don't hear much.

We get excused early from work-(unpaid of course ;) )to go vote here.

[Corwin]

Well we have a federal election here later this year too. What will be interesting, is our PM is a close friend of GWB!! Iraq is not popular here either, so it could be a tough campaign similar in some ways to America's!!

[magerette]

Not to derail this thread any further--but it is about elections--I would be interested in hearing what the issues are in the upcoming elections elsewhere. Everyone probably knows, with varying degrees of accuracy, all the U.S. blah-blah-blah.
Corwin, anyone associated with Bush is going to be tarred with the same brush, so yes, your elections sound like they could get ugly.

My major concern with this election in the States is that the real, crying need that we have for an intelligent, prudent and effectual leader is going to be swamped in the usual media circus of personality. This is not a good time for beginners--the world situation is complex and delicately balanced--obviously, as a woman, I know that women are fully capable of reasoning, and carrying heavy burdens of responsibility, so a woman prez is not a fear--but the woman they've selected to break the barrier is.
Hillary is a polarizer, as dte said, not a unifier.
But don't let me get off on a rant;rather, a bigger rant, I should say..:)

[Bartacus]

@magerette We have still a King although it's not absolutely sure that there will stay one. (The one to be crowned likes to create some small disturbances, but 'he's a man with a mission!' -> ???)
So this means there are only ministers like in the UK.

There are a few parties in my part of the country with the 3 major ones like "CD&V"25% (Christian and right midfield), "SPA"23% (Socialist and therefor left midfield) and "VLD"20% (Liberals and used to be right midfield, but now still unclear -> not for the working class, but have some more of the leftside view upon things). Then there's one party that will most likely never govern, but is as big as the previously mentioned, namely "Vlaams Belang"24%. (This is what you can call the rightflanck and although they have been an extreme right faction, it isn't totally true today, it's a bit shady, less Hard Lined)
Then you have a few small parties like "Groen!"5% (translated green -> environmental people) and then still some others but they have mostly gotten together with one of the big parties: NVA (CD&V), Spirit (SPA), Vivant (VLD) and Vlott (Vlaams Belang). Lijst Dedecker is a new faction and although titus might vote for him, there's only a small chance that it will get the nescessary 5% to get a seat in the governement.
Now this was about my side of the country, you've got the French speaking side too. There's one big party called PS40% (Partie Socialiste who are responsable imo for most of what is going wrong. They are blocking an effective governement and are known to be corrupt -Charleroi, Agusta, murder on André Cools, ...- ) There are 3 other parties who usualy switch in position to come second. The names are CDH18% (Christian faction and comparable to CD&V), MR 18% (Liberal and comparable to VLD) and Ecolo 18% (comparable to Green, but a better result)
There's also a small faction called FN (Front National -> right wing)

Now if I would vote, it would be NVA -> They stand for the next step in federalisation (more independency for Flanders), are against the Royals in their function they have today (want it more ceremonial), want to make the money transfers(€12.000.000.000/year) from North to South more visible and controled.
Still I don't have to vote myself, cause I'm working on that very same day. (I get some paper for this)

[dteowner]

Now magerette, you know as well as I that no politician is going to actually deal with the real problems. Regardless of your politics, it's unavoidable that spending dramatically outpaces income (even before the war expense, so don't even go there, pinkos!). You either raise taxes or cut back the handouts. Find me an elected official that's going to stand in front of the TV camera and lead that charge. They'll talk about it all day long and get lots of "political currency" off the issue, but actual change will never happen. The system discourages it.

[magerette]

Thank you for responding, Bartacus. You're very well informed! It's often said here in the U.S. that we have a two party system--Belgium would appear to be closer to a 200 party system :). We like to use the term "diversity" here a lot, but you definitely have us beat on that one, though there seems to be generous overlapping in some cases. Do you feel that this works for or against your country?
That is, is there enough consensus to get a coherent government together, or is it just an endless forum debate where everyone spouts their own rhetoric and regards that of others as mutually exclusive.

At least I've never seen photo clips of the Belgium parliament(?) in fist fights ala Korea. :)

**curious--hope you don't mind all this hijacking of your thread***

[txa1265]

Hillary is a polarizer, as dte said, not a unifier.

We were away last weekend and blew a tire (because the owner of a vacation home we were looking at put sharp rocks to discourage people parking too close to the house ... then told us to park in front of the house >:O ), and while I was waiting for the new tire to be mounted and balanced, I was watching Hillary's 'town hall meeting' in Des Moines. I found her interesting to watch - it is amazing how she has changed and softened her persona over the last 15 years ...

... but there is an interesting article on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16930958/) on Hilary and 'do overs' ...

[magerette]

Now magerette, you know as well as I that no politician is going to actually deal with the real problems. Regardless of your politics, it's unavoidable that spending dramatically outpaces income (even before the war expense, so don't even go there, pinkos!). You either raise taxes or cut back the handouts. Find me an elected official that's going to stand in front of the TV camera and lead that charge. They'll talk about it all day long and get lots of "political currency" off the issue, but actual change will never happen. The system discourages it.

It's true, dte--I'm a lost causer from way back:)
Yes the system perpetuates the system--I think it's a law of physics. But the system sometimes scripts it's own demise by turning into a cumbersome bureaucracy that turns a deaf ear to reality. And when the system ceases to serve it's purpose or vanishes outright, violent revolution, blood running in the streets, and brother against brother will ensue, as so well illustrated in other areas of the world.

So it's obviously time to start singing in detuned harmony;)

[magerette]

We were away last weekend and blew a tire (because the owner of a vacation home we were looking at put sharp rocks to discourage people parking too close to the house ... then told us to park in front of the house >:O ), and while I was waiting for the new tire to be mounted and balanced, I was watching Hillary's 'town hall meeting' in Des Moines. I found her interesting to watch - it is amazing how she has changed and softened her persona over the last 15 years ...

... but there is an interesting article on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16930958/) on Hilary and 'do overs' ...

That's an interesting link, Mike. I would say even the author is a little unsure of how he really views her. There's almost an "It's horrible, but I can't look away" flavor. (Sucks about the sharp rocks, also ):)
My problem with the Clintons and all politicians is trust. When Bill was in office, he pretty much let the media and the pollsters make his decisions. "What do the people feel I should do?" Frankly, I don't think the consensus of an uninvolved, underinformed and undereducated population(and I include myself)is the best policy maker. Hillary is of course a different ball of wax, but not much different, as your article shows, in being a creature inventing herself (and perhaps disguising herself) through the media.

[dteowner]

Slick Willie was one of the bigger crooks we've had in the Oval Office (IMO, of course), but I'll give the devil his due--the man was the apex of the pinnacle of politicians. No real opinions, personable to a fault, and somehow above the fray at all times. The guy out-teflon'd teflon.

I expect Hillary's attempted transformation has at least some foundation from Bill's advisors.

The sad thing is that the Democratic election platform will have a single plank--Iraq. I don't expect them to put forward any concrete ideas on anything, just constant hammering on Iraq. Unfortunately, that very well might be sufficient to win. (note that Iraq qualifies as one of those issues where doing the smart thing will get you thrown out of office).

[Corwin]

Yep, down here, our opposition party has no clearly defined policies, but will fight the election on 2 issues: Iraq and our revamped industrial laws which support employers over employees through individual contracts rather than union based collective bargaining!! The opposition will pull us out of Iraq and tear up the new laws, returning us to Union power!! Everything else is simply 'trust me'!! Yeah, right!!!! I'll vote for one of the small meaningless parties, or an independant if possible, rather than encourage either of the main contenders!!

[curious]

@magerette-go right ahead, i'm enjoying all the information, and discussions. i'm making a dent in obama's book and am holding my comments 'til then so i can add some useful things to the conversation. unfortunately i'm a slower reader than i am writer(which i'm not all that fast in either:)).

@Corwin-doesn't voting for a small meaningless party make your vote sound meaningless? i understand not wanting to vote for either of the two major parties as i do this a lot with the smaller votes, like supervisors, controllers, etc. but if you are unhappy with the main 2 party system why not find a party that has at least some meaning to you even if it has less members than say rpgwatch. at least you will know you have something at common, like this site has people that have a love or interest in rpgs though we are all quite different cookies, we are 'united' on some issues and thus are 'champions' of those values.

[Corwin]

Because NO party appeals to me!! The whole party system is WRONG in my most humble opinion!! A good politician, should truly represent the people in his electorate, NOT the party he belongs to. Here, the party dictates how he/she votes on any issue. This, to me, is not right. I know all the arguments, but I don't accept them. This system is NOT true democracy!!

[curious]

yes i agree, but not voting, or not caring who you vote for, or not trying to participate in having changes made are not only not true democracy either they are simply absentee democracy. Corwin why not start your own? you are respected here and are known for your exclamatory remarks: two talents that would draw people to vote/listen to you.

in a real democracy it is the smallest 'cells' of people and causes that have the largest impact on a society, faith, etc. sometimes its even one person; take away thomas jefferson from u.s. history and this country would most likely be quite a bit different. in nature it can be the same way. there will never be a perfect democracy, and if what you believe in is important enough to you then the unfortunate truth is that it is probably going to take a lot of effort to get it heard. it would be nice if a percentage of the millions of dollars spent on each campaign to get one persons views heard could someone be used to channel more debates that involved 'live' people rather than so many adverts that either attack or 'doll up' canidates. honestly it would be cool and a great signal of national democratic interest if in place of some of the endless sporting championships there were some political championships where tens of thousands of 'fans' gathered to see their views debated and hoping that their 'team' (canidate) could not only give good speechs/comments but rally their hopes that what they believed in was being fought for.

is our society broken because of the poiticians or the people? i'd say both have their parts. acceptance is as they say the first road to change. just as there are fewer and people left who refuse to acknowledge the 'inconveinent truth' of global warming and all our parts in it, only a united effort by a significant majority can hope to make lasting changes.

[Bartacus]

Thank you for responding, Bartacus. You're very well informed! It's often said here in the U.S. that we have a two party system--Belgium would appear to be closer to a 200 party system :). We like to use the term "diversity" here a lot, but you definitely have us beat on that one, though there seems to be generous overlapping in some cases. Do you feel that this works for or against your country?
That is, is there enough consensus to get a coherent government together, or is it just an endless forum debate where everyone spouts their own rhetoric and regards that of others as mutually exclusive.

At least I've never seen photo clips of the Belgium parliament(?) in fist fights ala Korea. :)

**curious--hope you don't mind all this hijacking of your thread***

Have you ever wondered why the president of the IOC is from Belgium?(that's the second one) Why we are again at the UN council while we are a relatively small country? (third time with only 10.000.000 citizens -> you've got cities with a larger population) Why a Belgian Pope was a real possibility?
It's because we are known to be good in compromises. A couple of our politicians can make some bad impression on TV about another country, but they always seem to make things smooth again after some time. (to many examples of this, but the best one is that one of our ministers compared the Dutch prime minister with Harry Potter. When you have a picture of him at the time, you'll see indeed some resemblance. Still the fact remains that you don't say something like that in her position to the press.)

Also don't forget what I said before: we really have only 3 parties participating in governement: Socialists, Christians and Liberals. And so I think many countries have a similar type of party system. (Germany, Netherlands, in fact most European countries seem to have 3 parties instead of the two at the USA)

[magerette]

Bartacus thanks for the insight into your country. I hope you know I meant no disrespect. I didn't mean to imply in any way that having such a diversity of parties was a bad thing!

I have often wished there was something less monolithic and steam-roller-like than the system we have--I don't think having only two parties is a virtue at all--in fact, I sometimes think in effect, we really have one party with two names!

I think the variety of parties you list also shows that the citizens of your country are far more concerned and involved in their government than we are and are willing to put an effort into getting thier voices heard.

I was just trying to picture something very different than what I am used to--intelligent compromise. We must have it happen occasionally, or things would fall completely apart, but it's difficult to see because we have so many factions in each party. They quarrel amongst themselves and don't seem to know who or what they are supposed to be representing, besides their own interests. Each party as a whole appears to support certain things, but within that party you have no support for anything that goes against an individual faction's personal agenda.

So my question was whether having so many intact and different organizations worked better than having two that have to represent everything to everyone, or whether it divided things and made it harder, not implying that your system was flawed. Your examples certainly show that it does indeed work very well.

Please forgive me if I sounded patronizing and excuse my ignorance, which of other countries and current affairs in general, is certainly profound. :)

AFA your minister likening the Dutch prime minister to Harry Potter--I did a search for his picture and I have to say I definitely see her point--though he is a bit more dignified..and older :)

[Geist]

This system is NOT true democracy!!
True democracy is an illusion. It rarely works in the interests of the people, but rather in the interests of those who are best able to manipulate the people.

--in fact, I sometimes think in effect, we really have one party with two names!
I certainly agree. You can exchange the puppets dancing in the whitehouse, but the string-pullers remain the same.

As for the US elections, if I were an American, I would likely vote for Ralph Nader.

[Corwin]

I'd vote for Denny Crane!! :biggrin:

[Bartacus]

@magerette You don't need to appologize for asking a question. I never felt disrespect from it. I just wanted to explain something why our country still works and we don't have a war like the former republic of Yugoslavia. VLD is for example against the workersunions, but they can't get that one trough with a partner in governement like CD&V or SPA. They just have to compromise and work out what they can realise in the duration of their ambt.

[txa1265]

As for the US elections, if I were an American, I would likely vote for Ralph Nader.

So you like his string-pullers better than the string pullers for the other candidates :D

[Geist]

Lets say he comes with fewer strings attached:)

[Myrthos]

...doesn't voting for a small meaningless party make your vote sound meaningless?
Not in a country like Belgium or The Netherlands. Like belgium, The Netherlands (and many other european countries) has a multi-party system. This mostly means there is no single party that has a majority. So you need to find other parties and form compromises. At the moment we will end up with a three party government, that consists of a center party, a socialist party and a socialist christian party. The latter one has only 6 seats out of 150. A small party, but it made this government possible. So in this case a vote to a small party was not wasted.

[txa1265]

The latter one has only 6 seats out of 150. A small party, but it made this government possible. So in this case a vote to a small party was not wasted.

That is partially true, but in practice it oftentimes just makes you feel better about your vote and displaces the wrangling from front end to back end. In other words, in the US we are starting to see the factional elements being courted by major presidential players. In a way you could say that they are forming their coalition governments up front - each candidate gets a certain amount from the various elements which will then determine their ability to rule if elected. Of course, the problem comes in there because once elected the government is pretty well solid - in a true coalition format there needs to be constant wrangling to get stuff done. So less happens, but more of what happens feels directly connected to the electorate than to the special interest factions.

Or something like that ...

[Lord Alex]

Returning to talk of the ballots in '08, why no love for my fellow North Carolinian, John Edwards? Obama, Hillary, and McCain are getting a lot of the press right now, but Edwards has some excellent "street cred," especially in Southern states where he is viewed as a New South moderate, able to pull in minority votes on one side and "socker mom" votes on the other. He is pro-military, but anti-Iraq, which is a good stance at the moment in most of the U.S. He also is a dynamic speaker who has learned how to turn up the charisma dial when doing the talking head thing on TV.

On the Repub side, it is basically a one-man show right now: McCain. Rudy J. will give it a go and come up short, as will Mitt, the Mass. Mormon.

However, it should all make for some exciting TV viewing.... ;)

[txa1265]

why no love for my fellow North Carolinian, John Edwards? come up short, as will Mitt, the Mass. Mormon.
Because he is a certified LOSER ... and nobody wants to take a chance on him. '08 isn't his time, as there are 'anointed faves' in line before him. It is sad, as it completely denies a fair appraisal based on his actual merits, but the reality is his candidacy is DOA.

come up short, as will Mitt, the Mass. Mormon.
I hate the fact that Mitt, who used to have some fairly decent ideas, has had to sell out to the worst elements of the Republican party to get any support ...

[Lord Alex]

Yeah, I guess Edwards is too late to the party and he's a speedy welterweight stepping into a room full of Ali's and Smokin' Joe's.... Mitt is a tool... no other way to put it. The guy espouses whatever is fashionable at the time. McCain, on the other hand, sticks to his guns, which I respect (even though I don't agree with his policies).

[txa1265]

Mitt is a tool... no other way to put it.

I thought he did some good stuff in Massachusetts (of course, Massachusetts Republican = Liberal Democrat in pretty much the rest of the country ;) ) ... but I really started hating him when he traveled the country on knee-pads with his pants around his ankles ready to service whatever hardcore set of right-wingnuts he met u pwith ...

[curious]

what imagery!!

@Myrthos- my disdain for using quotes has failed me again. i am in favour of the small 'meaningless' parties myself. i was trying to prod Corwin about his use of the word in the first place. i mean should you really be voting if you think your vote is meaningless? it seems like a 'falling back' which i guess could be explained by age. usually it is the younger people who don't vote for many reasons, one of which they think their vote would have no meaning. but once they 'learn' otherwise they become more involved and less likely to miss a vote. on the otherside is those that at sometime 'believed' their vote mattered for at least something but after countless dissapointments they are left with unpleasant feelings which they don't want to exhaust any more hope or emotions into. yet they unable to not vote as they have been ingrained with the act of it as almost an unquestionable civic responsibility. acceptance is a 'benifit' earned with age and experience, but like with many things the effects are not always positive. these are just generalizations of course but i am the perpetual 5 year old and i feel it my 'duty' to annoy people with "why"

[Corwin]

You have to understand, that in Australia, voting is COMPULSORY!! If you don't vote, you get fined!!

[magerette]

You have to understand, that in Australia, voting is COMPULSORY!! If you don't vote, you get fined!!


You mean they have legislated against apathy? I don't know whether to be outraged or impressed.;) No wonder you're ticked. Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.('All that is not forbidden is compulsory,' eh?)

I don't vote as much as I used to, mainly because the candidates all seem like the same people wearing different masks. But to me four years of U.S. government under the former First Lady is a virtual guarantee of global warfare, so there's no doubt in my mind I will be voting this time.

[Bartacus]

You have to understand, that in Australia, voting is COMPULSORY!! If you don't vote, you get fined!!

Same here, Corwin, but 'luckily' I have to work on that day a,d so nog obligated vote for me.

[Myrthos]

Not voting has an influence, just like voting has, but an uncontrolled one. In a democracy people end up with the government they deserve. If you don't vote you shouldn't be allowed to nag about your government either.

[Corwin]

Yeah, but at least you can say; "Well I didn't vote for them!!" :)

[Geist]

In a democracy people end up with the government they deserve. If you don't vote you shouldn't be allowed to nag about your government either.

The trouble is that in many of the major western so-called democracies the scope of debate has been so narrowed by corporate propaganda machines, a.k.a. the mainstream media (whose effect in imprinting values on people is not unlike that of the state propaganda of totalitarian regimes, though much more subtle) that democracy has become a hollow word. It is analogous to an elected monarchy in which citizens can vote for their King, but each candidate is committed to preserving the privileges of the nobility while keeping an iron grip on the peasantry.
True, in our present system we indeed have fringe parties whose platforms are fundamentally different from those of the main contenders, but without access to the propaganda organs, they have no chance of attaining power under normal circumstances.

As concerns the act of voting, I agree with Corwin. When stuck in a two party system in which the differences between the two contenders are minor and their policies are both unappealing, you might as well vote for a small party or independent that more closely reflects your values, or don't vote at all. By subscribing to the logic of the lesser evil you only help to legitimize and perpetuate the very system you oppose (assuming this is the case) while undermining those movements and organizations working toward change.

[magerette]

...the scope of debate has been so narrowed by corporate propaganda machines, a.k.a. the mainstream media (whose effect in imprinting values on people is not unlike that of the state propaganda of totalitarian regimes...

Geist, that's a very lucid description of life as we know it these days. Very few people seem to realize that behind the media's mask is a rather ugly face.

I also have to agree with your final statement, and with Corwin's position. Your half-hearted, compelled vote for a candidate you don't believe in is counted the same as any other and will do as much to elect that person as if you devoutly agreed with him.

The decision to withhold your vote at least spares you that moral responsibility, and actually can be a factor, because if enough votes are lost someone will be lusting after them and attempting to woo them out of people by changing a policy or two.

I also think that most countries get the government they deserve. Government is an unholy wedlock of the expression of order in a society and the lust for power and domination. It's generally the result of mass choice or series of choices in one form or another, barring sheer overwhelming conquest by a superior power.

Many socieities are fooled or bullied into a government they wish they didn't have and then are victimized by their own worst elements, but if you believe in human will, then there is a choice there also.

[txa1265]

When I saw 'corporate propaganda machine' I assumed it would be against corporations ... but I think that the 'corporatization' of the media (not just liberal or conservative bias, either) has had a profound impact on worldwide debate - we *should* have the greatest worldwide ability to get *accurate* information ... instead we just have unprecedented information access.

[Corwin]

I still remember with fear and trembling, the former masthead slogan of one of our leading news magazines: ALL THE NEWS YOU NEED TO KNOW!!

[Cleric]

Well, unless something MAJOR changes, Hillary's got my vote.

Overall, I liked Bill's Presidency (other than his famous indiscretion) and wouldn't mind having him in the background as an "Ambassador to the World". It's like getting an extra VP for free. :)

I liked the fact that Hillary at least tried to get us a Universal Health-Care system. It's something that I believe we desperately need. I was also impressed that she stood by Bill through some very embarrassing moments.

She was there, (watching and listening) beside Bill through the years he was Governor as well as President and she's done a credible job as a Senator herself.

I'd like to see what a woman President would do and she impresses me as being tough enough to take on the job. I don't think there are a lot of women who could.

I think she'll be more of a uniter than a divider. God knows I don't believe that she can bungle things as bad or worse than Bush has. I'd like to see Edwards as her VP.

One things for sure. This election will be an interesting show to watch!

[Yates1968]

I'll do a write-in vote for Thomas Jefferson.

[Dez]

I'd vote hillary if i was living in usa :) just because It would be intresting to see if she could improve the image of U.S globally and concentrate more on serious issues like education instead of starting stupid wars all over the globe.

[Corwin]

I'd vote for Geena Davis!! :)

[Dez]

Been watching commander in chief? :)

Hah, a friend of mine claims that he voted donald duck last time when we had elections here, or atleast thats what he says. Well I know H.clinton is like the rest of her kind.. A politician, and usually the most powerhungry end up sitting on the president's chair, I'm simply curious if anything could change there, probably nothing big :)

[txa1265]

I didn't like Bill Clinton, but readily acknowledge (and did back then as well) that he did mix in some really good stuff in terms of streamlining and efficiency changes to the government. In fact, I liked Gore back in '88 and would have been much more supportive of him had it not been for 'Clinton fatigue'. I stuck with the Libertarian nutjobs on that one.

I don't think Hillary is electable, and if she is I don't think she would be good for the country. I say that not because I don't think she could do a good job. Quite the contrary, I think that she has proven an effective leader and I've actually enjoyed watching some of her live stuff. I just think she is the most divisive person out there. She is like a lightning rod for all of the right-wingnuts!

I'm not sure about Obama either, because he seems like the the really cool guy that will unravel mid-campaign - but I really hate the 'Obama as Muslin' smear campaign that is sucking in computer-n00bs like my parents and scaring them away from actually looking at him objectively.

Edwards is yesterday's loser-news.

On the Republican side, McCain has lost everything that made him attractive 8 years ago. I have no interest in him. Guiliani I just don't know about ... he seems like he's trying to court conservatives despite having a pretty moderate history, then back-pedaling and flip-flopping all over the place trying to justify himself.

I have historically liked Mitt Romney - he was our Governor and did a great job there after doing a great job of handling (rescuing, some say) the Salt Lake City Olympics. But when it was clear he was heading for Washington, he started pulling 'I'm a conservative' crap. I don't know if you know Massachusetts politics, but we are so liberal that we were the only non-Reagan state in '84! I think it has been good check-n-balance having Republican governors and democratic legislatures for 16 years, but now I wonder - who is the *real* Mitt Romney? That thought alone after he has been my governor for 4 years tells me 'no vote 4 u'!

[Squeek]

Unless something goes terribly wrong, Hillary Clinton will get her party's nomination. She has all the qualifications for President -- well educated, smart, experienced, and the Democrats just put another woman into the #3 spot.

But the name "Clinton" embodies so much. It's a mixed bag with gems inside. Immediately her name represents success and achievement. But there's that cigar thing too, and all those lucky folks that got pardoned by her husband in his final act as President.

She's handling the war-vote question the same way Bill would. She's dancing. Sometimes the truth just won't do, apparently, not when you're trying to get people's votes.

The Republicans who stand the best chance against her are Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Republicans still have their edge for being tough when they have to be, and that's the card they're both playing.

If he can make it into the deep water, the edge goes to McCain, IMO, because he'll stand up well to the close scrutiny of a nationwide election. Like Reagan, he's a sincere guy who's been saying the same thing forever. He's a genuine hero, and he has more experience than all the Democratic front-runners combined.

[txa1265]

You bring up Reagan, which made me think of something. I voted for Reagan twice, but while I think he was perfect back then, I don't think he would be appropriate now. Similarly, I think that despite being very popular back then and also through nostalgia, Clinton wouldn't be the right one now. Things have changed and we need to move forward, not back. I don't think that *any* Republican has a chance of forward motion, and don't see Clinton doing it either. But, like I said, not because she lacks ability - she is much smarter than her husband and while she'll never have his charisma, she is working on her character and trying to be more personable.

[Maylander]

In my opinion, it's time to get a woman in charge - that way, women in general can finally stop going "if only we had a woman in charge".

On a more serious note, I personally hope for Hillary as I think she might be the right one to fix relations across the world that have been weakened in recent years. She seems good at that sort of thing. Her husband, Bill, is currently occupied trying to stop global warming, which is a cause I support a lot. In general, I feel the two could do a good job (let's face it, Bill would definetly be in the picture) as far as world politics go. I don't know enough about domestic poletics in the US to say whether or not anyone would do well at home.

[The Hulk]

I would vote for Ron Paul. He is so different from most other republicans. He was great on the Bill Maher show on May 26th. You can find that full episode on YouTube if you're interested in seeing it(though you can also find small clips of it that leave out important parts). The thing I did not like though, is Ben Affleck was one of the guests, and he said that Mitt Romney will beat Ron Paul and get the republican nomination. Even Bill Maher himself who hates Bush and usually hates other republicans seems to genuinely like Ron Paul. He would be great to move the republican party back in a positive direction, instead of the disastrous direction Bush has been pushing the republican party. Bush and Paul may both be republicans, but they disagree on so much, its hard to believe they are both in the same party. There really is somewhat of a republican rebellion going on lately with Bush's strong and incomprehensible support for the senate bill entitled S. 1348(unfortunately Obama and Hilary both seem to basically support most aspects of it, and McCain is fully in favor of it and they have poor records in supporting legislation that would stop ilelgal immigration so for that reason alone I could not vote for them), telling people it does not include amnesty, and the lame security provisions in it that would not secure our borders to further illegal immigration. The last amnesty bill we had in 1986 under president Reagan was very similar to the S. 1348 bill, and that was a failure and only caused illegal immigration to increase. For the record, I have no problem with legal immigration in reasonable and racially balanced numbers(and our legal and illegal immigration is not racially balanced at all, but has been massively favoring hispanics over all other races for the past several decades, see this link for more info http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4703307
but I'm against illegal immigration. Conservative journalists, talk show hosts and t.v. show hosts have been really slamming Bush on this(and other politicians who support it) and for good reason. Most polls taken in the U.S. show that both democrat and republican U.S. citizens feel there is already too much immigration and it needs to be lowered, and much more could be done to secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration and most also want a law passed to make english the official language of the U.S. The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment is being abused like never before and it was never intended to give automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens(but the courts have been wrongly interpreting it that way for a long time now), and one of the authors of the amendment even said as much on the floor of the senate back in the 1800's. We need to get the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment back to its original meaning and that woul help alot with discouraging future illegal immigration and Ron Paul would do that if elected. We need a president as well as senators and representatives who will carry out the will of the people and not ignore them. The only 3 candidates who are really serious about stopping illegal immigration without granting amnesty to all the illegals who are here are Paul, Tancredo and Hunter. Check out this link for more info
http://www.betterimmigration.com/
You might ask, well if not amnesty, then what should be done with all the illegal aliens currently in the U.S.? Attrition through enforcement. If we finally get serious about enforcing immigration laws(instead of just making token efforts to enforce immigration laws like every president post-Eisenhower)such as preventing employers from illegaly employing illegal aliens and reserving welfare benefits for only those in the country legally, most illegal aliens would eventually leave the country over time on their own and then go to the back of the line and apply to legally immigrate instead of trying to get in illegally again. The few who don't could eventually be deported.
Some say the main reason Bush is doing this is because he is a globalist like his father who thinks a one world government(governments across the world combining until there is eventually only one big government left)is what we should be aiming for in the future, and thats why he is quietly and stealthily setting the stage for the future formation of a North American Union(Connie Fogal of the Canadian Action Party has been making light of this in Canada and speaking out about it, and in the U.S. Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo have come out against it, but no other presidential candidates that I know of have spoken out against the idea), whether American citizens like it or not. O_O

[Mageoffire]

The top politicians are typically soulless, middling nothings. I agree with Dez.

[Squeek]

Soulless middling nothingness pretty much describes every candidate's position on immigration reform during yesterday's Democratic Party candidate debate. We'll soon see if the Republican candidates can do any better.

Politicians are particularly ill suited to address this problem, because taking real action means losing a lot of (hispanic) votes; and that's why it remains unsolved. If it were up to a bunch of plumbers, shoe salesmen or engineers, it would have been solved a long time ago.

[txa1265]

If it were up to a bunch of plumbers, shoe salesmen or engineers, it would have been solved a long time ago.

It is funny that you put 'engineers' in there, because while the number of visas for skilled technical workers has been too low to meet demand, there have been unskilled *illegal* immigrants streaming across the borders taking from the system and giving nothing or very little back.

[dteowner]

If it were up to a bunch of ... engineers, it would have been solved a long time ago.Goes without saying, and applicable to most any problem... ;)

[txa1265]

Goes without saying, and applicable to most any problem... ;)

And even if the outcome wasn't particularly efficient it would be exciting to watch ;)

[dteowner]

Rube Goldberg, eat your heart out! :D

[Bartacus]

Same here, Corwin, but 'luckily' I have to work on that day , so nog obligated vote for me.

Since I switched firm, I do have to vote tomorrow. Ah well, at least I don't have to work.

Btw, a little while ago some American political news slipped in to our seven o'clock news. I don't know exactly who it was that said, only that it was a republican: countries with two or more main languages simply don't work!
I'll bet he never heard of Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and most likely some others.

[dteowner]

There's a great deal of stupidity going on around Montreal due to friction between the French and English speakers. I would venture to say it isn't working all that well there. I believe you have pointed out in the past that there's friction in your country as the dominant language seeks to push out the culture of your part of the country, yes?

[Bartacus]

There are disturbances, but no more then in another country where only language would be spoken.
The dominant language is rather undecided: Dutch could be viewed as the dominant cause of a 6.5 to 4 milion majority. Still Belgium is often viewed as a French speaking country and as I already pointed out: they still have much more power then the Dutch speaking part. Some people want to split up the country, I'd say devide the things where there's a difference of opinion (because of another cultural herritage) and keep one for the rest. The people who want to either split up or want to 'push out the culture of the other part' are in fact minorities. Important minorities, but minorities nevertheless.

[magerette]

.... Some people want to split up the country, I'd say devide the things where there's a difference of opinion (because of another cultural herritage) and keep one for the rest. The people who want to either split up or want to 'push out the culture of the other part' are in fact minorities. Important minorities, but minorities nevertheless.

Same here. But there's something about language that hardens the cultural division. U.S. has had wave after wave of immigration from all nations, but having one official language which immigrants learn is part of identifying with and becoming part of the country.
Those who don't wish to do so are identifying more completely with their old country, and while that is their right, perhaps it would be more appropriate for them to stay and improve that country rather than coming here and absorbing all the benefits of the existing culture while expecting to be treated as foreign nationals as well.

My two cents.

[Bartacus]

Same here. But there's something about language that hardens the cultural division. U.S. has had wave after wave of immigration from all nations, but having one official language which immigrants learn is part of identifying with and becoming part of the country.
Those who don't wish to do so are identifying more completely with their old country, and while that is their right, perhaps it would be more appropriate for them to stay and improve that country rather than coming here and absorbing all the benefits of the existing culture while expecting to be treated as foreign nationals as well.

My two cents.

I understand your point. Through history however it wasn't always so clear what the main language was in America. Ex:Columbus -> Spannish all the way it would seem. Another example is that of New Orleans -> Orleance is a city in France and it was a (rather small one, but still..) possibility that the US would change language to French. I believe they fought together with the US against the UK and the statue of liberty a gift from France was.
I don't say that you have to accept what's happening now, not at all, just that it wasn't always so clear for the US which language would be the one.

My point however was something different: It was for me a ridiculous thing to say that countries with more than one official language don't work. If the (I believe it was a presidential candidate for the Republicans, but I'm not sure.) politician would have just said what you just wrote, hell, I'd just concur with him.
It would be the same like the AEL proposed in Belgium to make Arabic an official language.

[Bartacus]

Oh yeah, a part of the results are already known for the elections in my country. It seems that CD&V (the Christians) / NVA have won the elections on the Flemmish side. Lijst Dedecker, the vote from titus (if he still voted like he said here), has reached the election limit of 5% and therefore a reprensentative in the senate.
In the other part of Belgium, it seems that it's even more suprising: PS (socialists) may have lost their majority and for the first time in history not be the largetst party in the Southern Part.

[Squeek]

English is the language of the United States, and that's obvious to all of us over here. What's less obvious is the value of helping children of immigrants learn their parents' first language.

My mother spoke Russian as a child and would often translate for her grandmother whose English was poor. She remembers how proud her grandmother was for having three sons and a grandson fighting for the US in World War II, how proudly she signified that by posted four US flags outside her home and how she once marched in a local parade honoring the war effort, carrying and waving a US flag.

She translated her brother's letters, because he wrote them in English. He was killed shortly before the war ended.

My mother looks back with regret, remembering how she never wanted anyone she knew to hear her speaking Russian. Like any young person, she wanted to fit in, and that meant speaking English. Today she can't remember or speak a word of Russian.

My mother's family would have been better off if their children had been encouraged to embrace and preserve their heritage. Many families in the US are in that same position now, only worse, because of well-meaning school policies that put so much emphasis on English.

Countries with more than one official language are challenged because of it (sorry, Bartacus). But they're also better off, because they have more culture and heritage.

[Corwin]

Canada is interesting!! The french minority (mainly Quebec ) have wanted to seperate for more years than even I can remember. Much of the rest of the country would be happy to see them go!! :)

Language is a problem, even though everything has to be printed in both English and French. In the schools, we learnt 'Parisian' french, which is not quite the same as what is spoken in Quebec. When I trotted out my schoolboy french on a visit to Montreal, I was laughed at (not pleasantly). Shall we see, that in Canada, there's an uneasy truce between the 2 cultures. Perhaps some of our members who still live there could give more recent examples, but I know some hostilities still exist!! :)

[titus]

nope didn't vote dedecker but cdv/nva. Let's hope this will be a different government than purple. Although I find it sad that there is still a cordon sanitair after VB reaching 20%.
What did you vote bartacus?

[Bartacus]

I voted the same way as you, titus. My personal vote went to Yves Leterme/Frieda Brepoels for the senate and Inge Vervotte/ Bart De Wever for the Chamber. And like you, I want to see a difference in governement. About the Cordon against Vlaams Belang: that I knew when I voted for CD&V/NVA. You forget the Union ACV which plays an important role in CD&V. I hope for a orange-blue governement with lijst DD.

@Corwin: It depends on what you call hostile, but there are disturbances in Belgium too off course. But I don't laugh with another person trying to speak the other language. (Unless it's offcourse 'strikske', the chairman of the PS Frenchspeaking and thinking he can become premier with only two words of Dutch.)

[magerette]

Bartacus/Titus--what is this sinister sounding cordon sanitaire? My very sketchy french wants to make it into some kind of health-related quarantine, which doesn't make sense...

[titus]

No it isn't but they treat it like it is a disease. The cordon sanitair is that no single party wants to cooperate with the Vlaams Belang "Flemish interest roughly translated" they are an extreme right party wich do get 20% of the peoples vote

[magerette]

Ah, so they are labeling this party and banding against it? I think we have a sort of cordon d'embarassement for our right-wingers also. (Other parties are embarrassed if they accidentally agree with them.) :)
Thanks titus. Though I don't understand in full the complexity of your country's party structure, I find it interesting and a great model for other governments. Diversity is hard to represent in any government, but two parties (which are really just two faces of one party) really does a poor job of it.