US Elections 2008

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Um... history check. If half of what Bush/Cheney and the administration is true, they have broken dozens of laws, committed high crimes and make Nixon look like a little school boy caught with his hands in the cookie jar in comparison.

What saved Bush's administration was having a Republican Congress that did absolutely no oversight for at least six years and dragged their feet in the 7th year. The hearings and investigations are ramping up but there's so many toxic areas to address it may take a decade.

Well, this is what happens when people get "creative" - instead of doing things the proper way, they sped all their time to try to go around all the checks and balances. Therefore, what is needed is good leaders, not merely a watertight system (actually, it needs to be airtight...). Singapore lacks a upper house but is better off without it, especially when its Parliament is merely the size of a state Parliament in a Malaysian (/US?) state. [FYI, it has less than 100 members]

Obama will do well by being equal to all parties. Giving all representation is the best check and balance method.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

Well, this is what happens when people get "creative" - instead of doing things the proper way, they sped all their time to try to go around all the checks and balances. Therefore, what is needed is good leaders, not merely a watertight system (actually, it needs to be airtight...). Singapore lacks a upper house but is better off without it, especially when its Parliament is merely the size of a state Parliament in a Malaysian (/US?) state. [FYI, it has less than 100 members]

Obama will do well by being equal to all parties. Giving all representation is the best check and balance method.

In my country's case, we're just a small island state. So yeah, you can look at us. But, we only offer one model. The US system is complex because it has to be. 300 million + people, with different ideas, beliefs....

Singapore is ok, but I guess we would never be great.

Anyway, my prof raised two interesting issues. Now that the US has its first black president,

1) When will the first female president be elected?
2) When will the first black female president be elected?

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

In my country's case, we're just a small island state. So yeah, you can look at us. But, we only offer one model. The US system is complex because it has to be. 300 million + people, with different ideas, beliefs....

Singapore is ok, but I guess we would never be great.

I guess differently. Even with no Senate and less than 100 members in Parliament, it's working well. [I mean, look at how Japan, South Korea and Taiwan tried, and failed, to copy the required, and now they're twisted mirrors of the US system, itself a not-so-prefect-mirror of the UK one]

Other small states have failed, like Timor Leste. Singapore is pretty fine as it is, just needs a few more opposition members. A Parliament debate in Singapore can put people to sleep, and it doesn't help that sometimes, I see MPs at the back coming close to dozing off... [Wait, that was before 911...]

1) When will the first female president be elected?
2) When will the first black female president be elected?

1> 2012-2016... Alaska and New York beckons.
2> I dunno.

[Kaioshin Sama]

It's funny because the Democratic party is pretty much the equivalent of our Conservative party and the Republican party is way out there somewhere far off our known scale. Also the NDP which holds 10% of the seats in the House of Commons isn't just suspected of being socialist like Obama's camp, they are actually admittedly socialist and have held office in Ontario before.

This more or less explains how American political leaders match up to Canadian parties on the political spectrum.

[yezhanquan]

The US was, and remains, great because of its ideas. Most Asian states haven't quite reached the point where different ideas are not only tolerated, but also encouraged and discussed. Liberty and security can never be fully balanced. While I enjoyed Singapore's security, it would do us good to open up, a little at a time if necessary. But, we have to get moving.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

It's funny because the Democratic party is pretty much the equivalent of our Conservative party and the Republican party is way out there somewhere far off our known scale. Also the NDP which holds 10% of the seats in the House of Commons isn't just suspected of being socialist like Obama's camp, they are actually admittedly socialist and have held office in Ontario before.

This more or less explains how American political leaders match up to Canadian parties on the political spectrum.

Somehow, I always felt the two governments actually are quite similar, even thought they are two different systems. Just with an extra Quebec semi-seperatist block. Like how HK wants out of PRC.

[Kaioshin Sama]

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

Somehow, I always felt the two governments actually are quite similar, even thought they are two different systems. Just with an extra Quebec semi-seperatist block. Like how HK wants out of PRC.

Only you are a hundred times more likely to see a fight by turning on CPAC then you are C-SPAN. Our politics can get really angry. Just a few examples. Sometimes it's just funny though.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

Only you are a hundred times more likely to see a fight by turning on CPAC then you are C-SPAN. Our politics can get really angry. Just a few examples. Sometimes it's just funny though.

You've never seen Taiwan.

ON CBC! Best Taiwanese Parliament Fights of All Time!

[Mystique]

Just some amusement

Spoiler:

[Daggett]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin Sama

It's funny because the Democratic party is pretty much the equivalent of our Conservative party and the Republican party is way out there somewhere far off our known scale. Also the NDP which holds 10% of the seats in the House of Commons isn't just suspected of being socialist like Obama's camp, they are actually admittedly socialist and have held office in Ontario before.

This more or less explains how American political leaders match up to Canadian parties on the political spectrum.

I'll just have to say that the PoliticalCompass.org is not the best way to test a political party or ideology, because they are partly strongly biased and many of their "rating" of single parties are questionable. It's not the test-creators (total) fault, because the more complicated and detailed a quiz is, the more opinion and biased a test gets as there are many different definitions of liberty. And I doubt that the two-factor classification is the best way to describe a political ideology. It's certainly better than the just left-right spectrum, but it's still too simple.

I'm just saying this, because it's really used a lot and most people take it too seriously.

But yes, although Canada would be still economic far to the right for many Europeans, it certainly leans more to the left for many Americans.

[Anh_Minh]

I've read that Sarah Palin was willing to work for Obama. On energetic issues.

Is she trying to sink him for the 2012 election?

[cors8]

Don't see why Obama would need her help. What's complicated about "Drill, baby, drill!"?

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I've read that Sarah Palin was willing to work for Obama. On energetic issues.

Is she trying to sink him for the 2012 election?

No, not at all. I think it is a great opportunity for Obama to recruit a useful ally. Considering how bad the relationship was between McCain and Palin prior to election day, there is a chance that Palin might had voted for Obama. On top of that, Palin is now willing to join the Democrats to work on energetic issues, what a great opportunity for the Democrats!

Aside from that, people shouldn't forget that Palin had quite a high popularity rate with the female voters and also some of the Republicans. If she switched over to the Democrats, they will also win the female voters and some of the Republican supporters. More over, Palin seems to be good at working with energy issues, so I don't see why Obama would refuse, considering that he is widely seen as a sensible man around the world.

[james0246]

Palin, during the campaign, refused to even stand on the same stage as Republicans that are Pro-Choice, so I seriously doubt that should would ever be able to work up the ability to actually talk to Obama/Biden/Democrats without shuddering in disgust due to their opposing standpoints on several key isssues.

That being said, Palin only knows the Oil business in Alaska. So, I doubt she would have anything important to say on the majority of the issues that the Green party or others wish to discuss with President Obama.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

No, not at all. I think it is a great opportunity for Obama to recruit a useful ally. Considering how bad the relationship was between McCain and Palin prior to election day, there is a chance that Palin might had voted for Obama. On top of that, Palin is now willing to join the Democrats to work on energetic issues, what a great opportunity for the Democrats!

Aside from that, people shouldn't forget that Palin had quite a high popularity rate with the female voters and also some of the Republicans. If she switched over to the Democrats, they will also win the female voters and some of the Republican supporters. More over, Palin seems to be good at working with energy issues, so I don't see why Obama would refuse, considering that he is widely seen as a sensible man around the world.

1) "Useful" is highly debatable here. This person is embarrassing to many Republicans much less Democrats. She appeals to an extremely fringe part of the party.
2) She was not "highly popular" with the female voters. She was popular with certain segments of the female voters: 1) the "any woman will do" segment (extreme feminists voting against their own self-interest because Palin is extremely anti-abortion). 2) the "conservative christian" women who approved of her statements and record.
3) She'd never switch to being a Democrat. She won't even stand on the same stage as any moderate Republican.
4) I don't see any evidence that she's "good at working energy issues". None. I see that she's pro-oil, period -- but not so pro-corporate oil that she won't insist on a chunk of profit for Alaskan citizens since Alaskan oil is a community resource. I wonder if she'd try to take THAT idea to a national level.
5) Its precisely because Obama is a sensible man that he'd be out of his mind to do anything with Palin other than keep a close eye on her. Personally I don't think she's got a clue about the rule-of-law or other "American values", she's is just the new fringe darling of the theocrats and corporate cronies.

[4Tran]

For the longest time, the idea that a black man would be the president of the United States was a sign that I was either watching or reading fiction. I'm very pleased to be proven wrong as Obama has the potential to be the most intelligent and rational president of the last few decades.

His win had to do with a lot of things, but not the least of it was the fact that his was possibly the best presidential campaign in recent memory, maybe ever. The overwhelming nature of the victory should hopefully provide him with enough political capital to accomplish all the jobs that need to get done.

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Anyway, my prof raised two interesting issues. Now that the US has its first black president,

1) When will the first female president be elected?
2) When will the first black female president be elected?

I think that what Obama proved is that these questions can only be answered by the right candidate. In the last few decades, there has been no serious black candidate, so it's no surprise that there haven't been any black presidents. Hillary Clinton is the very first serious female candidate and she had a real shot of winning, so another equally capable woman might well be able to get that top prize. As of now, I can't think of any woman that's going to have a shot (unless it's Hillary in 2012, but that's horribly unlikely). I don't think that there will be much difference between a black woman and a white one in this respect, save that the black woman will have to be that much more capable.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I've read that Sarah Palin was willing to work for Obama. On energetic issues.

Is she trying to sink him for the 2012 election?

It's just hot air. She's been talking a lot lately, and not everything (hah!) she says makes any sense, and what makes sense is often nowhere near the truth. Palin's been sniping at Obama the last few days so it's obviously not a serious offer, and Obama would be a fool to take her up on it.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

No, not at all. I think it is a great opportunity for Obama to recruit a useful ally. Considering how bad the relationship was between McCain and Palin prior to election day, there is a chance that Palin might had voted for Obama. On top of that, Palin is now willing to join the Democrats to work on energetic issues, what a great opportunity for the Democrats!

Aside from that, people shouldn't forget that Palin had quite a high popularity rate with the female voters and also some of the Republicans. If she switched over to the Democrats, they will also win the female voters and some of the Republican supporters. More over, Palin seems to be good at working with energy issues, so I don't see why Obama would refuse, considering that he is widely seen as a sensible man around the world.

In addition to Vexx's points, Palin is actually more popular with white men than with white women, but more to the point, her appeal to any particular demographic group would play no part in whether she'd be of any use to Obama.

Moreover, she's also never shown any willingness to work with Democrats nor has she shown any competence at handling any policy decisions. Even her highly vaunted pipeline deal failed to address many of the concerns on the Canadian side of the border and there's a high probability that it'll never get built.

As far as Obama is concerned, Palin is of most use to him by doing exactly what she's currently doing: dividing the Republican party between those who think that she's a real star with potential and those who think that she's an incompetent that should be kept far away from any national post. Even better for Obama, she's well-liked in the party, so she'll be causing trouble for years.

[Vexx]

Aye, thats the biggest reason to let Palin romp around and talk --- it spotlights the loonies and marginalizes them.

How did one conservative analyst put it? Every Republican congresswoman, governor, or politician should be roaming the aisles slapping the shit out of the men that support Palin.

[mg1942]

Spoiler for The aftermath... plus $0.02 random rants and what's ahead for the G.O.P....:

[solomon]

I hear that Cali voters approved a referendum to begin construction of inter-state trains moving at High Speed; A noble quest.

Wonder how long it'll have to be put on the back burner.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by solomon

I hear that Cali voters approved a referendum to begin construction of inter-state trains moving at High Speed; A noble quest.

Wonder how long it'll have to be put on the back burner.

if obama is serious about his public works projects, the high speed transit railways is a good place to start.