A Question to Obama Supporters

[ahinton]

Do those "minor errors" include the following vitriolic screed?:

Aside from the fact that one man's vitriol is another man's nectar, the answer is obviously "no", although, as you should be able to see for yourself that the passage concerned remains intact after the corrections were made, your question was therefore rhetorical and accordingly requires no answer.

Your charges that the administration controls the results of private polling and that the United States is imperialist are pretty far out, man.  Are you trying to parody the far Left?

Let's take those in reverse order.

Firstly, I was neither parodying nor seeking to parody anyone or anything in what I wrote.

Secondly, I leave the question of American imperialism or othewise to others to answer (as at least one member here has already done).

Thirdly, I did not "charge that the administration controls the results of private polling", yet you mevertheless appear to suggest that I am accusing the US government of vote-rigging and/or other corruption in electoral administration. Whilst I am not necessarily saying that none of that has ever occurred in US (one has only to look, for example, at the last general election but one for the hackles of doubt and suspicion to be raised, at the very least), there are plenty of other factors that may influence both the outcome of a general election and how members of the electorate may vote in one in an ostensibly democratic nation such as US; these include but are by no means necessarily limited to

1. human error in vote collection and processing

2. the success or otherwise of campaigning in terms of marketing hype / the extent to which campaign fund values between parties may vary / the extent to which donation to party funds may be - or are perceived to be - corrupt

3. vacillations and uncertainties on the part of voters who support Republican policies on some issues and Democrat policies on others / the extent to which the main parties are perceived to differ from one another

4. the extent to which those entitled to vote actually do so

5. the extent to which and the reasons why voters switch party allegiance at successive elections / general disillusionment with the main political parties

6. the extent to which the electorate trusts each party to carry out its electoral manifesto if elected.

Let us examine these briefly, bringing into the arena some comparisons with UK where these might seem useful.

1. We know for a fact that there have been numerous occasions in UK in which counting has been doubted, postal ballots have failed and voting papers including proxy votes lost; don't tell me that this is a problem that affects UK only and that US is the only country in the world that can claim 100% exoneration from this.

2. Far larger sums per capita are invested in electoral campaigning in US than in UK, although that fact makes the issues neither more nor less serious in US; it is said (although with how much truth I cannot say for certain) that a greater proportion of Americans are influenced by more electoral campaign hype than is the case in UK. If one main party in US spends significantly more on campaigning than the other in what is effectively a two-party system, this is unlikely to make no difference to the end result. I do not know to what extent campaign fund sources are checked and exposed in US, but this is becoming an incresing preoccupation in UK where increasingly aggressive and intrusive battles are being fought even between elections over the register of interests of members of the British parliament to the point at which it's almost impossible for an MP to have some champagne in a pub without the snooping eyes of journalists and others trying to figure out who paid for it and why.

3. Again, I'm not sure how many US voters at any given time feel as though pulled in two directions due to such mixed support of party policies, but there is certainly a factor in UK today that is quite different from the situation some 25 years ago, which is that the three main political parties are far closer to one another and this naturally makes voter decision-making more difficult.

4. If you are satisfied that an election in which 45% of the electorate vote will produce the same overall outcome (and I do mean overall rather than state by state) as one in which 75% do so, then you can ignore this one, though if you don't, it is worth bearing in mind.

5. There are undoubtedly far fewer voters in both US and UK who no longer support the same party consistently as was once the case; disillusionment is but one reason behind that fact.

6. Corruption (both actual and perceived) in political circles and increasing doubts about how political power may influence human nature are but two factors that can exert influence on the electorate, resulting in an increasing distrust of politicians to do when elected what they say they will do during an electoral campaign; part of this also results in an unhealthy but by no means always misguided perception that all too many aspiring politicians are more interested in power-grabbing and -broking and their own personal interests than in the interests of the electorate and the good of the nation.

Nothing I have written here or in the previous post is, or is intended to be taken as, indicative, still less illustrative, of an anti-American stance on my part; any remarks therein which anyone may read as negative are confined solely to the government and its administration rather than reflecting upon individual American citizens per se.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

What about Hawaii?

Not to mention New Mexico, Alaska, etc etc.

[michel dvorsky]

There are imperfections in ANY voting system.  No question about that.

No social choice mechanism is perfect (especially if you believe Arrow's Impossibility Theorem).

But the US system is among the very freest in the world. 

Liking or not liking an outcome, in itself, has nothing to do with whether or not the outcome is valid or not.

 

[ahinton]

There are imperfections in ANY voting system.  No question about that.

Well, that's one fact upon which we can agree, but then I wasn't only talking about system imperfections but about other factors that can equally impinge upon voters' rights, ability to make intelligent decisions and other material germane to the operation of a democratic electoral regimen.

No social choice mechanism is perfect (especially if you believe Arrow's Impossibility Theorem).

Again, fair comment, as far as it goes.

But the US system is among the very freest in the world. 

Says who? Provable by what means? And free from what? And there's no such thing as a free lunch, either...

Liking or not liking an outcome, in itself, has nothing to do with whether or not the outcome is valid or not.

That, of course, is true, but was not the point at issue; what I wrote was more about whether or not one might "like" the way in which any such outcome is brought about, which is a quite different issue from "liking" or "disliking" an election outcome in the simple terms of whether the Republican or Democrat party achieved a majority.

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

If i would be american, i would vote for Obama because he's something new, wich maybe has more chance for change.

[sharon_f]

Yeah, 8 years ago the country was looking for something new, too, and look what we ended up with, a President with little or no experience who has absolutely devastated this country. 

I am absolutely amazed at the people who are supporting Obama just because they "want a change." Have they bought into the rhetoric so much that they believe putting Hillary Clinton in the White House would be more of the same? Hillary Clinton is nothing like George W. Bush.

You know for years, I heard women say "If women ran the world there would be no war." Now that women have a chance to put a female in the White House they have backed away. Once again they have disempowered themselves. (Shame on you, Oprah!) Racism (or the fear of being accused of being a racist) trumps sexism. Remember it took women a lot longer to get the vote in this country then it did for black males.

But Americans, especially younger Americans truly believe that all you need is "to believe", to want something to happen and it will happen. You too can be America's next top model or an American Idol or a lottery winner. Just want it. Whatever happened to hard work and perserverance, getting knocked down and getting back up, being disappointed but still striving. When did knowledge and experience eqqual "more of the same."

Maybe it's just me getting old and crotchety but I just can't believe how many people have bought into the hype. But then again, I absolutely couldn't believe after what everyone knew about him that Geroge W. got in a SECOND TIME!!!

Well, that's enough of my rant...

[gyzzzmo]

Maybe it's just me getting old and crotchety but I just can't believe how many people have bought into the hype. But then again, I absolutely couldn't believe after what everyone knew about him that Geroge W. got in a SECOND TIME!!!

Well, that's enough of my rant...

Yeah, that was for me the moment to loose all trust and hope for the Americans, when they chose Bush for the second time. How can so many people just ignore all the stuff he did wrong, and reelect somebody who probably hasnt more brains than my shoe?

[mephisto]

Ralph Nader for president

[gyzzzmo]

Few Americans even knew who Nader was, he was more known in Europe than in his own country :p
And that's why America stinks (sorry guys). For a country wich such barbarian ideas, opinions and flawed politics/justice, its far too powerful.

[quasimodo]

I can't understand why USA is not going for a truly 'One woman/man, one vote the presidential' it really baffles me...

Otherwise, Obama is the next President of the USA... Providing you guys don't kill him before.

[ahinton]

Few Americans even knew who Nader was, he was more known in Europe than in his own country

In which case he sounds almost like Elliott Carter (or at least as things stood, reputation-wise, until relatively recently). OK, then - Elliott Carter for President (he wouldn't want the job and, although the fact that US has already had one President Carter hasn't stopped it having two Bush ones, I suspect that he's far too busy anyway, but US could surely do far worse)...

Best,

Alistair

[i heart xenakis]

I can't understand why USA is not going for a truly 'One woman/man, one vote the presidential' it really baffles me...

Otherwise, Obama is the next President of the USA... Providing you guys don't kill him before.

Not really...


Hillary is probably going to be the Democratic nominee.  We had a surge of black states, and thus Obama's delegates surged, unsurprisingly.  We're about to have a surge of white states, and tonight should put Hillary maybe 30-45 delegates within Obama with Ohio and Texas, one of which she's going to win handilly and the other she's going to win sorta-closely.  Vermont should go Obama's way unfortunately, but it's only 14 delegates.  Then we're off to Pennsylvania, which is a fore-gone conclusion as being a landslide for Hillary.  Also, remember Giulliani?  He was the front-runner for a while just because of what he represented, but when people started really finding out about him they said "oh sh*t!"  That's happening with Obama right now.  I think it's going to be VERY close, but Hillary's superdelegates ought to make the difference.  I am like... 80-85% sure Hillary will end up with it.  If Obama does manage to eek out a victory, I would favor McCain to be the next president, sadly...

[counterpoint]

If someone like the newbie Obama wins against Hilary, it's only because the Americans don't want Hilary for president. Perhaps neither Hilary nor Obama 

Good for the Republicans, bad for the world.

[prometheus]

analysts say the opposite.

[i heart xenakis]

analysts say the opposite.

Well we can see who's right in a couple of hours


I already got Vermont right.

[i heart xenakis]

Got Texas right.  Hillary slaughters Obama just like I said.

Am expecting 53-55% for Hillary in Ohio.  Let's see!

[i heart xenakis]

Oh no!   Obama jumps ahead in Texas!


First I look it's like 64/30 Clinton, now it's like 56/40 Obama XD  I still expect Hillary to take Texas within a 60%+ margin though.


PS- Hillary looking strong in Ohio so far.  At 56% [edit- 62%]


I think it's pretty much going to come down to HOW badly she beats Barack in PA.

[prometheus]

No. They claimed that Obama has a much much better chance of beating McCain.

Also, didn't they say she has no chance of catching up with Obama no matter what she wins, she will never have a margin large enough...

[mattgreenecomposer]

Well it is definately a close race, but they are all from the same sewer so it won't make much difference in the long run.  All three candidates have similar views and won't "change" anything even though they say they will.  We should all know this by now.
Best thing to do is hold your nose and hope...

[prometheus]

If enough people vote Nader so that the democrats will never ever win another presidential election again, things may change.

[i heart xenakis]

Also, didn't they say she has no chance of catching up with Obama no matter what she wins, she will never have a margin large enough...

Some people say different things.  After tonight it's looking like she'll be about 55-65 delegates behind Obama.  There are still 21 states to go, with a total of approximately 600 delegates.  So if Hillary takes, say... 350 and Obama takes 250, a 7:5 ratio, she'll be about even and then her superdelegates will carry her to the nomination.  But it's going to be tight no matter what.  Hillary has 8 states she should expect to win (including PA which has a LOT of delegates and she should take at a massive ratio), and Obama has two states he should take (Mississippi and South Carolina), then there's one that's sort of up for grabs.


But no, she is in no way what-so-ever out of the race.

[i heart xenakis]

Anddddddd she takes Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio, and loses Vermont.  *should be a pundit*

[lisztisforkids]

https://www.newsweek.com/id/118240
 

[lisztisforkids]

The US is a big colonial power!  Guam! American Samoa! ...Wake Island!  Uhh..Puerto Rico? (Ahem...which had a referendum to remain a territory of the United States).

Nobody seriously considers the US an imperialist power.

 Yeah seriously! Its not like America ran countrys the size of India, Brazil, North Africa, South Africa, the Congo, Indonesia......

 Geez...   

[i heart xenakis]

https://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

My aforementioned math is way easier and you can actually understand and see it; let me elaborate though,  600 more delegates to go; Hillary is 60 behind after tonight.  So, just for the sake of keeping things easy, let's say that the delegate counts as of this moment are:

Obama: 60
Clinton: 0

If you don't understand that then stop reading, because there will be BASIC ALGEBRA coming up, and you don't stand a chance =P  So let's say they have a dead heat.  Each take 300 of the 600.  Well now the count is:

Obama: 360
Clinton: 300

BUT!  Let's say Clinton takes 360 and Obama takes 240 (a ratio of 3:2).  This means that for every five delegates, Clinton gets three and Obama gets two, or if you're a percentage person that means 60% and 40%, which, while not necessarily inconceivable is really only possible in a vacuum, unless something miraculous for the Clinton campaign happens between now and Pennsylvania (which, considering the up/down nature of this race IS logically possible, mind you, but let's stick to what we know now to avoid hypotheticals).  That would make the counts:

Obama: 300
Clinton: 360

Whoops!  See what happened there?  The "massive" and "insurmountable" lead has just been flip-flopped.  Again, very unlikely scenario, but it is just an illustration concerning how easy it would be for her to make up the deficit.  So let's take a look at something more reasonable.  Let's say the ratio is something more realistic like, oh... 57:43.  This is actually very realistic, because Pennsylvania will sweep for Clinton and Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon will likely sweep for Obama (about even delegates between PA vs. those three), and then the rest of the states SHOULD go to Clinton without too much sweat or struggle.  Now what happens with that 57:43?  Well it's pretty easy!  57% of 600 is 342, and 43% of 600 is 258.  So let's take a look at our ending delegate counts now:

Obama: 60 + 258 = 318
Clinton: 0 + 342 = 342

Well look what happened there!  Clinton won again!  This also doesn't take into account the momentum for Clinton and the fact that Obama's "flash in the pan" glory is quickly beginning to evaporate as all the hype is replaced by an understanding of who he is and what he REALLY stands for, but like I said before, those sort of intangible hypotheticals I will avoid.  The math says it all.  Take a look at 56:44 and 55:45 respectively:

Obama: 324
Clinton: 336

Obama: 330
Clinton: 330


By the way, don't you guys know what superdelegates are?  It's pretty much agreed upon that a lot of the tailcoats that went from Hillary to Obama will be making statements in the next couple days about their conversions back to Clinton =P  I am in no way saying that it's in the bag for Clinton; I am just illustrating how easy it would be for her to conceibably take it, and that anyone who is already discounting her is feeding you very poor information.  Also, neither of the candidates are going to get enough delegates to lock in the nomination; it's going to be left to the congressionals, and they lean heavily for Clinton, so if it is TRULY down to the wire (something in the neighborhood of < 20) don't expect Obama to take it either way.

[michel dvorsky]

Yesterday's big winner: John McCain. The Democratic nomination process is becoming so drawn out! Overall, March 4th was very good for the Republicans and very bad for the Democratic party.
 
Hillary is still trailing Obama by almost 100 delegates.  Still, she has disrupted Obama's momentum and ended the media's uncritical attitude towards him.  The (big) Pennsylvania primary is almost two months away, and Hillary will likely win that quite comfortably. 

Obama has the advantage going forward, but the way the nomination is playing out is just about the best scenario the Republicans could have hoped for.  Expect dirt slinging on the Democratic side while the Republican/Conservative establishment rally around McCain. 

Certainly the most thrilling election of my lifetime. 

[mephisto]

MacCain is like so cool.

[indutrial]

Yeah seriously! Its not like America ran countrys the size of India, Brazil, North Africa, South Africa, the Congo, Indonesia......

 Geez...   

Of course not. Instead, we just exterminated and marginalized our own continent's native peoples...

America may not be imperial in the late-1800s high school Euro History definition, but they are definitely the biggest offenders in capitalism's latest indirect forms of imperialism (i.e. globalization, big stick diplomacy). Not to mention how ridiculous the neo-conservative adventure in the Middle East is. Despite what most of the country cares, our army is serving a pocket of elite interests (who are spending everyone's money except their own) by occupying a foreign land and allowing contractors to move on in and capitalize off of available opportunities. Not too different from the British building railways across African lands. Despite all the b.s. about liberty and democracy (similar to the religious bent of late-1800s trends), this is certainly imperial times we're living in. Our leaders just aren't saying so because it's doesn't look good on TV.

[michel dvorsky]

I love how the various enemies of globalization and free trade simultaneously decry it for:

A) Being "imperialistic", i.e., profiting at the EXPENSE of the third world
B) Shipping "our jobs" overseas. "Losing out" to foreign competition.

The truth of the matter:

Free trade produces positive net benefits for the parties engaged in it.  Trade is not a zero sum game.  Specialization according to comparative advantage can make everyone better off (David Ricardo's legacy).  Those who lobby for protectionism inherently do not have the average consumer's best interests at heart - they are much more likely serving special interests (unions, etc).  We buy shirts from Bangladesh because that is what they are comparatively better at producing right now, whereas they buy aircraft components from us, because we are relatively (and absolutely) better at producing that.  It's not exploitation. 

[arensky]

Certainly the most thrilling election of my lifetime. 

No doubt. Canadian politics since Trudeau and the Québecois separatist movement have been rather dull. 

[indutrial]

I love how the various enemies of globalization and free trade simultaneously decry it for:

A) Being "imperialistic", i.e., profiting at the EXPENSE of the third world
B) Shipping "our jobs" overseas. "Losing out" to foreign competition.

The truth of the matter:

Free trade produces positive net benefits for the parties engaged in it.  Trade is not a zero sum game.  Specialization according to comparative advantage can make everyone better off (David Ricardo's legacy).  Those who lobby for protectionism inherently do not have the average consumer's best interests at heart - they are much more likely serving special interests (unions, etc).  We buy shirts from Bangladesh because that is what they are comparatively better at producing right now, whereas they buy aircraft components from us, because we are relatively (and absolutely) better at producing that.  It's not exploitation. 

Since your arguments (judging by this and the rest of your contributions to the thread) seem rather hard-wired, I'm not even going to bother engaging further in a pointless debate that has no beginning, no end, and no merits whatsoever.

I pass

[michel dvorsky]

Since your arguments (judging by this and the rest of your contributions to the thread) seem rather hard-wired, I'm not even going to bother engaging further in a pointless debate that has no beginning, no end, and no merits whatsoever.

I pass

Probably a wise choice, given that you know virtually nothing about international trade specifically, and capitalism in general. 

[gyzzzmo]

Ignoring the international consequenses of capitalism, its more interesting what the extreme capitalising wich happens inside the US has for an effect. Profit isnt everything.
Capitalism like in the US is mainly short-term related and doesnt only effect the income of people. The main problem in the US is that profit rules everything: income, politics, news and 'happyness'. Only information what sells is available for americans, wich keeps them ignorant. And thats why its so easy in the US to take extreme measures like Bush does, and many presidents before him did.

[mephisto]

People aren't going to change their views on capitalism based on what someone tells them in a pianoforum. I believe Jake2v is actually studying economics, so I guess he knows something.

[indutrial]

Probably a wise choice, given that you know virtually nothing about international trade specifically, and capitalism in general. 

Yeah, okay. Since you've honed the art of regurgitating immense amounts of bullshit from newspaper editorials and internet blogs, I probably don't stand a chance, at least in that context. What's funny is that in the end, my votes are just as powerful as yours, despite how much hot air and propaganda helps you float your way to the voting booth.

[gyzzzmo]

People aren't going to change their views on capitalism based on what someone tells them in a pianoforum. I believe Jake2v is actually studying economics, so I guess he knows something.

You dont have to study economics to know the basic meganisms behind them. Also, knowledge about economics doesnt mean you can WISE decisions.
Also, discussing is always good, even on a pianoforum :p

gyzzzmo

[michel dvorsky]

Yeah, okay. Since you've honed the art of regurgitating immense amounts of bullshit from newspaper editorials and internet blogs, I probably don't stand a chance, at least in that context.

In debate, you are entitled to your own opinions; not your own facts.

You forfeit respect when you ignore two centuries of human thought in favor of ignorant prejudice.

What's funny is that in the end, my votes are just as powerful as yours, despite how much hot air and propaganda helps you float your way to the voting booth.

Assuming you're an American citizen, your vote is infinitely more powerful than mine.  I'm Canadian.  Even if I were American I wouldn't wish that the uninformed be denied the right to vote.  I'm in favor of max freedom for the responsible memberse of society....even those with whom I disagree the most.  That's the beauty of the system you seem to resent so much.

[pies]

a

[i heart xenakis]

To dvorsky and indutrial:  Will you two try to debate something civilly or will this retarded internet one-upping continue for two more pages?

Don't tell people what to do in my thread.


Carry on Indutrial

[ahinton]

Don't tell people what to do in my thread.

It's not "your" thread. You started it and so you have a perfectly understandable interest in how it progresses but, like any piece that a composer writes, it's only his/hers until the point at which it gets to the performers.

That said (and if you'll pardon my saying it and understand exactly why I did so)...

"Carry on Indutrial "

indeed!

Best,

Alistair

[i heart xenakis]

It's not "your" thread. You started it and so you have a perfectly understandable interest in how it progresses but, like any piece that a composer writes, it's only his/hers until the point at which it gets to the performers.

That said (and if you'll pardon my saying it and understand exactly why I did so)...

"Carry on Indutrial "

indeed!

Best,

Alistair

Get out of my thread pregnant dog.

[ahinton]

Get out of my thread pregnant dog.

That phrase almost sounds like an other-end-of-telescope paraphrase of "go forth upon thy journey, Christian soul" (which will, of course, be familiar to those who know Elgar's The Dream of Gerontius), but, since you have yourself thrown perfectly understandable doubt upon the sadly accepted and at the same time less than appropriate use of the term "pregnant dog" in another thread which you have recently instigated, the invitation that you offer here seems to be as diluted as the pupils of this particular reader's eyes are dilated by reading it - and, to remind you, this thread is no longer "yours" but merely one which you initiated...

[gyzzzmo]

Xenabis fails to understand the concept of 'forum'. But that doesnt amaze me, 'freedom of speech' is a strange thing in the US.

[i heart xenakis]

That phrase almost sounds like an other-end-of-telescope paraphrase of "go forth upon thy journey, Christian soul" (which will, of course, be familiar to those who know Elgar's The Dream of Gerontius), but, since you have yourself thrown perfectly understandable doubt upon the sadly accepted and at the same time less than appropriate use of the term "pregnant dog" in another thread which you have recently instigated, the invitation that you offer here seems to be as diluted as the pupils of this particular reader's eyes are dilated by reading it - and, to remind you, this thread is no longer "yours" but merely one which you initiated...

Alistair; you may be smart, but you sometimes lack that all-important "common sense" factor =P

Did you honestly think I was being serious?

Xenabis fails to understand the concept of 'forum'. But that doesnt amaze me, 'freedom of speech' is a strange thing in the US.

Ditto sans "smart/sometimes".

[pies]

a

[thalbergmad]

Alistair; you may be smart, but you sometimes lack that all-important "common sense" factor =P

He will write a million words to descirbe a glass of water and die of thirst.

Thal

[mattgreenecomposer]

So anyways...back to Obama,

Looks like the media is really gangin' up on him now after they were caught red handed with those Sat. night live skits.  Its interesting to see how they treat him now questioning his experience in Afg. and Iraq (none), compared to before when they gave him the "ok" as the best candidate with foreign policy.

[ahinton]

Alistair; you may be smart, but you sometimes lack that all-important "common sense" factor =P

Did you honestly think I was being serious?

No, I didn't - which is one reason why I responded as I did; you may be smarting, but you appear sometimes to lack that all-important "sense of humour" factor...

Best,

Alistair

[i heart xenakis]

No, I didn't - which is one reason why I responded as I did; you may be smarting, but you appear sometimes to lack that all-important "sense of humour" factor...

Best,

Alistair

If you wrote out a response that long and that verbose with the knowledge I was kidding then you lack that "life" factor   Just admit you thought I was being serious

PS- am I "smarting" right now?

[ahinton]

If you wrote out a response that long and that verbose with the knowledge I was kidding then you lack that "life" factor  

...in your opinion - an opinion which almost certainly takes no account of the shortness of time that my response took to write - so no such lack as you suggest, I'm afraid.

Just admit you thought I was being serious

I admit to what I write and to why I write it, right or wrong, no more, no less.

PS- am I "smarting" right now?

I do not know and am not concerned one way or the other; after all, I can't see from here...

BEst,

Alistair