News   Jul 11, 2024
 4.3K     0 
News   Jul 11, 2024
 63     0 
News   Jul 11, 2024
 337     0 

U.S. Elections 2008

Who will be the next US president?

  • John McCain

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 80 77.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 14.6%

  • Total voters
    103
Thankfully Canada welcomes us with open arms.

Some more sad stats for you:



South Dakota, abortion limits (illegal except for rape and incest) -- Yes, 55%

could be worse. could have been palinized: abortion (illegal except for life and death situations for the mother or demonically possessed fetus) of course, with palin's witch doctor, the latter could be remedied.
 
That's the ups and downs of our system. Parliamentary politics spares us Sarah Palins but it also keeps us from getting our Obamas!
 
Last edited:
Thankfully Canada welcomes us with open arms.

Some more sad stats for you:

Arizona, ban on gay marriage -- Yes, 56%

Arkansas, ban on gay couples adopting children -- Yes, 57%

California, ban on gay marriage -- Yes, 52%

Florida, ban on gay marriage -- Yes, 62%

Nebraska, end Affirmative Action -- Yes, 58%

South Dakota, abortion limits (illegal except for rape and incest) -- Yes, 55%

All I can say is don't let the fact that Obama has won give anyone the impression that America has become the land of tolerance and land of equality, because it certainly isn't.

Obama has a lot of expectation to live up to, and with a new huge majority in Congress he has the power to do it.

We'll see if he can pony up. I'm cautiously optimistic, but given the track record for Democrats over the past two years cannot get excited in any way. Period.

Canada is still the premiere example of human rights and equality in the western hemisphere. It only feels like it gets worse the further south one goes in the Americas.
 
I made an error the South Dakota abortion ban did not pass.

From my friend in NB "Actually, the South Dakota measure did NOT pass, 55/45. "This measure would prohibit all abortions in the state except in cases where mother's life or health is at risk or in cases of rape or incest for pregnancies of less than 20 weeks. A similar measure that did not include exceptions for rape or the health of the mother was on the ballot in 2006, but was rejected by voters 44 to 56." Thus, a "no" vote was a vote in favor or reproductive rights".
 
A repost of one I made on another site:

In over two centuries of American history as an independent nation, there have been a handful of presidents that are generally regarded as being truly exceptional: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Washington's greatest achievement, in my opinion, is the simple fact that he gave up power in an orderly fashion, establishing a tradition of (mostly) peaceful transitions of power, the big exception being the results of the 1860 election. This is HUGE in my opinion, just look at what has historically happened elsewhere, with "presidents for life" a frequent outcome in emerging democracies. Then there is his pre-presidential career to take into account. Lincoln's achievement needs no repeating, and F. Roosevelt is in the same group. All of these figures are very likely to still remain vivid in popular memory many centuries from now.

What do these presidents have in common? They were all extremely capable and inspiring figures, facing immense challenges, with the nation's future in doubt (in Washington's case, the challenge occurred before his presidency). We all know what difficulties lie ahead for the USA, from the terrifying global economic meltdown, to the grinding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the looming problems with the environment and dwindling natural resources.

I think that President-elect Obama is indeed the man to step up and lead the way -- in my 35+ years of observing American politics, I have never seen a figure at the presidential level with his intelligence, drive, charisma, intellectual curiosity and character. (Bill Clinton came close, but fell short on character*.)

One thing I noticed: the interval between the first inaugurations of these figures was about three-quarters of a century: the interval between the first presidential inaugurations of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln was 72 years, between those of Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt was 72 years -- and between those of Roosevelt and Barack Obama will be 76 years. Coincidence, no doubt, but suggestive none the less.

When I think about it, these presidents define three (and now possibly four) great eras in American history: Washington ushered in the new republic, which lasted (for the most part) in its original shape until the problem of slavery came to a head. Lincoln took the nation through the American Civil War, and established its new post-war political landscape, which lasted until the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt led the nation out of this, and through the greatest war in modern history, in the process shaping the political discourse we all know. Even the Republicans accept almost all of what Roosevelt established. Given what the USA now faces, it is quite possible that Barack Obama will also end up recasting the American political landscape, in the same way that his great, transformative, predecessors did.

*note -- Bill Clinton was actually fairly good on character (just compare him to G.W. Bush) but as a Democratic president with a Republican congress, he needed to be cleaner than clean -- those Republicans were digging and digging for ANYTHING they could throw at him.
 
Looks like Prop 8 passed in California. Lots more work to do to fix that hateful side of the US.


While I am happy that some Americans moved to the front of proverbial bus last night, indeed, are now chauffering it through some dangerous curves, I am dressed completely in black today as a result of the push to the back of the bus given to gay people by the state of California.

Those who support the traditional definition of marriage are not necessarily anti-gay or 'hateful'. Are the British hateful? The French? They have not passed gay marriage either. The vote was fairly close in California, and with change in the air it is likely that support will grow, so maybe it's better to reserve the term 'hateful' for places in the world where being gay cannot even be uttered without risking one's life or freedom or where gays have no rights. There are many of those.

The superiority of the Canadian system is inherent in the fact that we do not vote on civil rights. Can you imagine if propositions existed in the 1960's: "Alabama last night voted down Proposition 16, which would have allowed blacks to vote".

We've had gay marriage in Canada for three years and yet we are so superior? As I recall Stephen Harper did take the issue of gay marriage to Canadian parliament where it was passed. As I also recall we do boast a little mechanism called the 'Notwithstanding' clause which allows for the breaching of constitutional or civil rights. Just look to la belle province for numerous day to day examples of such insidious little 'hateful' breaches of rights that Canadians claim to hold dear...
 
Those who support the traditional definition of marriage are not necessarily anti-gay or 'hateful'. Are the British hateful? The French? They have not passed gay marriage either. The vote was fairly close in California, and with change in the air it is likely that support will grow, so maybe it's better to reserve the term 'hateful' for places in the world where being gay cannot even be uttered without risking one's life or freedom or where gays have no rights. There are many of those.



We've had gay marriage in Canada for three years and yet we are so superior? As I recall Stephen Harper did take the issue of gay marriage to Canadian parliament where it was passed. As I also recall we do boast a little mechanism called the 'Notwithstanding' clause which allows for the breaching of constitutional or civil rights. Just look to la belle province for numerous day to day examples of such insidious little 'hateful' breaches of rights that Canadians claim to hold dear...

How insidious of you to compare countries that offer the full rights of marriage under another name to the patchwork discrimination in US where in states like Virginia gays cannot legally be in contract with each other for anything. Where a majority of states have bans on any right of marriage to same sex couples.

The opposite of love is hate and they certainly are not showing love to us by denying us the rights and privileges to protect our loved ones. Just because they present it into a pretty little religious bow does not dispute that is it hateful discrimination based on an innate characterstic, no different than denying equality based on race.

Because we get killed in the Carribbean or Middle East we're supposed to accept second class citizenship here or in the US. That argument might fly from your perspective, but not from where I sit. Our nation is supposed to be better than that and Canada proves it is better. The US cannot say it is the land of equality when some people are more equal than others.

Why don't you try accepting second class citizenship because you might be treated worse somewhere else and then come back with these dumb arguments.
 
The truth is that gay America has a long road ahead to find real equality in a legal sense. Canada is leaps and bounds ahead in that regard.
 
I think that President-elect Obama is indeed the man to step up and lead the way -- in my 35+ years of observing American politics, I have never seen a figure at the presidential level with his intelligence, drive, charisma, intellectual curiosity and character. (Bill Clinton came close, but fell short on character*.)

Yeah Clinton should have known the neo-conservative evangelical Republicans were going to make attempts to discredit him using ANY means.

One thing I noticed: the interval between the first inaugurations of these figures was about three-quarters of a century: the interval between the first presidential inaugurations of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln was 72 years, between those of Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt was 72 years -- and between those of Roosevelt and Barack Obama will be 76 years. Coincidence, no doubt, but suggestive none the less.

Hmm interesting, I'd like to see Obama's numerology or astrological chart....

When I think about it, these presidents define three (and now possibly four) great eras in American history: Washington ushered in the new republic, which lasted (for the most part) in its original shape until the problem of slavery came to a head. Lincoln took the nation through the American Civil War, and established its new post-war political landscape, which lasted until the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt led the nation out of this, and through the greatest war in modern history, in the process shaping the political discourse we all know. Even the Republicans accept almost all of what Roosevelt established. Given what the USA now faces, it is quite possible that Barack Obama will also end up recasting the American political landscape, in the same way that his great, transformative, predecessors did.

Wow very optimistic and I tend to agree with you on the whole. Except the past 20+ years of american rule compounded by Bush's most recent oppressive reign has, among other things, literally destroyed global markets, destroyed the international reputation of the US, and enabled the rapid decimation of the environment. These are a global issues that affect everyone - not just isolated to the US. Obama is an incredibly capable, articulate, intellectual I would even venture to call him a global citizen (much more than any other US president that I am aware of) if he can gather around him, both in the US and across the world, people who can effect change tangibly, then his tenure may end up being will be as transformative as you predict.

Bush, in the next 70 days before Obama is inaugurated, has the ability to spend money, make permanent changes to policy, appoint people internally within the US system that would stand in the way of Obama. Couple that with the already devastated economy (which has not seen its worst days yet) and the social repercussions that are already being felt in the US, plus the TRILLION DOLLAR national debt, might make it difficult for Obama to enact as much change as really is needed on so many levels. Obama gets it though which is encouraging.
 
Wow very optimistic and I tend to agree with you on the whole. Except the past 20+ years of american rule compounded by Bush's most recent oppressive reign has, among other things, literally destroyed global markets, destroyed the international reputation of the US, and enabled the rapid decimation of the environment. These are a global issues that affect everyone - not just isolated to the US.

I'm no Bush fan but it should be noted for accuracy that a piece of Federal legislation called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed under Clinton's watch in 2000. In this piece of legislation, it essentially removed federal oversight on derivatives and credit default swaps.
 
I think it's telling that Obama got elected in the US and not the so-called progressive countries of Canada or Europe. Can anyone really imagine an Obama winning votes in la belle province or a French muslim of Algerian descent winning the presidency in France? For all their flaws, the American people are in many way more accepting than many of us would like to believe or give them credit for.

Now that the US election is done and we have this example before us, let's start examining the terrible state of Canada's democracy....
 
Nonsense, though you do have a point about many European countries. For one, our head of state is a Black woman from Haiti. Kapuskasing, yes, Kapuskasing, had a Black mayor. Secondly, it will happen here, there just isn't a potential minority politician in the pipes in the moment, and that has little to do with race, per se. And as long as "Canadian Obama" can speak some French, yes, many there will vote for a minority. Perhaps not backwaters like Herouxville, but certainly many parts of the province.
 
Last edited:
I will disrupt this analysis of American democracy and Mongo's rather profound presidential theory to bring you some transit geekery:

California has passed Prop 1A on HSR, Measure Q (a DMU-LRT for Sonoma-Marin counties) and Measure R which provides massive funding for transit projects in Los Angeles, including extending the subway to Westwood.

This is momentous, because it not only provides a high speed rail network, but provides the capital investment in the intra-regional transit needed on either end.

Perhaps this belongs in another thread. Back to politics!
 
Now that the US election is done and we have this example before us, let's start examining the terrible state of Canada's democracy.... How quickly we forget 2000 and 2004. What are some things wrong with US democracy? Not having voters lists and having state-by-state requirements for registration places the onus on individuals to figure out a difficult system, and makes it easy to disenfranchise many people. This is not in theory, it's been done often in the state.

Congressional districts are gerrymandered to the point where they resemble a map of the Holy Roman Empire, but worse. The districts are decided on not by an impartial tribunal, but by the parties themselves, which leads overwhelmingly to incumbents being re-elected, whatever their merits. In Canada, when the Tories bottomed out, they went from a majority to two seats. Now, that, was responsive government. In the States, it's almost impossible for more than a few seats to move one way or another.

The states has no national system of voting, meaning that it's a mishmash of regulations and technology. They use un-auditable voting machines with code that is not placed in escrow and which cannot be validated. I think this is unacceptable, and we have seen how well their system performs. If there are huge lineups to vote in the states, it reflects on more than just their interest in voting, it reflects as well in the enormous boondoggle of trying to vote in many places. Their elections are run like a third-world country.

And as for them voting for a black man, well, well done. It is historic and I am impressed and touched by that. Of course, Winnipeg has voted in a gay man as mayor.
 

Back
Top