Barack Obama becomes POTUS-elect

[melancholy]

HOLY SHIT! Indiana actually went blue! How the hell did that happen!?

[pavelbure]

Anyway, congrats to Obama as a president to all you Americans. He seems FAR more 'left'/progressive than anyone we had during the past forty years here in West-Germany since Willy Brandt.

So ya saying America is royally fucked in the ass now?

unless you like daddy government taking care of you, yeah.

well we'll see what this dumbo eared jackass does now that the libs control everything.

I heard Barack Sadam Hussein Osama Bin Laden is going to use the redistributed income to open a series of madrassas and outlaw the Bible.

change we can believe.

truthfully i can't wait. now i can attack instead of defending someones policies.

this is going to be fun.

[melancholy]

In related news, who else here thinks that Obama's speech was absolutely epic? Like the kind of speech people will constantly quote from 50 years from now?

[pavelbure]

In related news, who else here thinks that Obama's speech was absolutely epic? Like the kind of speech people will constantly quote from 50 years from now?

me me me

i nearly fainted 50 times while hussein talked. it was the most dazzling epic speech i ever heard in my entire life. i had this thrill running up and down my leg.

[Lartrak]

Why are you calling him by his middle name? It was weird enough when people called Bush Double-You, but at least they had the excuse that there were two of them.

[|darc|]

In related news, who else here thinks that Obama's speech was absolutely epic? Like the kind of speech people will constantly quote from 50 years from now?

I am not one for speeches, because I can see through the bullshit. But this one definitely got me pretty proud of what we've done. And yes, it will be quoted for years, like Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, MLK Jr's I Have A Dream, and Kennedy's inaugural address.

[Stormwatch]

Yeah, and you gringos are quite late. Here in Brazil we had a mulatto president almost 100 years ago.
Okay, he wasn't elected, he was the VP who took over after the president died, but it counts anyway.

[Christuserloeser]

Anyway, congrats to Obama as a president to all you Americans. He seems FAR more 'left'/progressive than anyone we had during the past forty years here in West-Germany since Willy Brandt.

So ya saying America is royally fucked in the ass now?

Although I am extremely happy that for a change someone won an election that does seem to have a different approach on fighting poverty than by lowering taxes for the richest of the rich, I do not expect that much to change. He will do the necessary things to save the country's economy from collapsing (read: fixing what libertarians fucked up), but nothing more. - Although I really wish that you guys finally get public health-care. That'd be something! It's absolutely ridiculous that people have to die because they can't afford seeing a doctor. - Basically every developed country has free public health-care.

Anyway, I don't expect that much to change. Obama is not a communist or something. - Still, his election is a huge slap in the face for you libertarians, isn't it? -- It literally throws back your movement a decade or two, doesn't it ?

I mean his election will have consequences for the rest of the world too. Take Germany as an example: We've lost free health-care a few years ago (you have to pay €10 per quarter now - if you can't afford it, because you're old, poor or young, you're fucked), and they're continually outsourcing more and more services that used to be free (especially in regards to dental care atm).

During the past thirty years, the German governments, from Kohl to Schröder to Merkel, did do nothing but selling state property: The post service (now Deutsche Post and DHL), the telecommunication service (which invented ISDN when still under control by the government btw, now T-Com), local power and water suppliers (now EON, the world's biggest private power supplier), and right now they're trying to sell the railroad tracks of Deutsche Bahn (the former public transit service).

In 1974 there were maybe a hundred thousand people living from welfare, in the 1980s there were 1 million, during the 90s there were 3-4 million, and in 2006 we had more than six million (!) - that's exactly as much as back in 1933 when the Nazis were elected. Can you imagine what impact this has on society ? 6.000.000 people cut off from daily live ? From culture and education ? Well, Germany as a global power is richer and more influential than ever since 1945, but society has to pay a price no one can estimate yet.

Now, to get people to agree with politics that led to this disaster, they always used the US as a prime example for a working libertarian state; or a competitor, so they could say "we need to do this, we have to compete with the US"; or as the boogie man, someone to point your finger at to say "look, you could be off worse, you could live in the US, so stop complaining". - With Obama's election, German libertarians are basically cut off. Their influence on society will be vastly reduced during the coming ...eight years.

now i can attack instead of defending someones policies.

this is going to be fun.

You mean "attacking someone's policies" as in calling him "hussein" ?

[toastman]

When projections and Intrade both started showing Obama at 300+ electorals, I figured it was a done deal. And that was well before the actual election.

Either way, Obama is probably going to be a one-termer. I don't think anybody could pull this country out enough of this mess in four years to be able to win a re-election bid.

Plus, Obama/McCain, same thing, little difference. I'm just hoping that the Republican party is fractured enough to splinter into two smaller, equally powerful parties. Maybe absorb a couple of the smaller, conservative third parties. That way, we have something closer to a real choice in four years.

[Christuserloeser]

Either way, Obama is probably going to be a one-termer. I don't think anybody could pull this country out enough of this mess in four years to be able to win a re-election bid.

Good point. - Let's wait and see, the guy got some rhetorical talent!

I'm just hoping that the Republican party is fractured enough to splinter into two smaller, equally powerful parties. Maybe absorb a couple of the smaller, conservative third parties. That way, we have something closer to a real choice in four years.

I don't know. It's debatable whether having two right-winged parties is better than having one. In Germany there's three: Social-Democrats, Christian Democrats, Liberals (= Libertarians in the US)... or actually four if you count the Green party (=green libertarians). They're all huge fans of Thatcherism. No choice whatsoever.


Edit:

It was probably the greatest acceptance speech ever, just like McCains was the best losing speech ever

Wow.

[toastman]

I'm just hoping that the Republican party is fractured enough to splinter into two smaller, equally powerful parties. Maybe absorb a couple of the smaller, conservative third parties. That way, we have something closer to a real choice in four years.

I don't know. It's debatable whether having two right-winged parties is better than having one. In Germany there's three: Social-Democrats, Christian Democrats, Liberals (= Libertarians in the US)... or actually four if you count the Green party (=green libertarians). They're all huge fans of Thatcherism. No choice whatsoever.

It's not that I want to see two right-winged parties, it's just that out of the two major parties the Republican party is the more fractured at the moment. I would like to see actual liberal and centrist parties with real political clout (the Democratic party is more center-right than anything really), but as that wouldn't happen without some major political shifting, I'd just be happier with more shades of red than we currently enjoy. We learn more through open debate of issues when there are more than two opinions.

[Christuserloeser]

We learn more through open debate of issues when there are more than two opinions.

Yeah, absolutely.

Since the 90s there basically are five (six) parties that do get seats in the Bundestag in each election. Still, I don't feel that there's more than one opinion - and definitely no open debate. Sure there's the former socialist party of East-Germany (SED, then PDS, now Die Linke), but they don't get much coverage in the media. Although they're pretty liberal, and do have different views on certain economic issues, they e.g. seem to have a very German tendency towards Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism, not much different to that of the other parties. Plus, they've been constantly adjusting their program to the right during the past few years, presumably to get more votes (they only got two seats in 2002's election).

Of course I think it's good that in the 2005 election they got 54 seats (8%), but it'll be a long way (if ever) until they're powerful enough to do much if anything. All in all I tend to think that it doesn't really seem to matter that much if you got only one party or fifteen, you have to participate in politics or the media yourself if you really want to make your voice heard. I guess that's what democracy is about.

And in your two-party system, Obama seems to stand for a political vision I haven't heard voiced in public since I don't know when. I honestly can't remember. - Let's see if he can keep some of his promises.

[Ex-Cyber]

It's not that I want to see two right-winged parties, it's just that out of the two major parties the Republican party is the more fractured at the moment. I would like to see actual liberal and centrist parties with real political clout (the Democratic party is more center-right than anything really), but as that wouldn't happen without some major political shifting, I'd just be happier with more shades of red than we currently enjoy. We learn more through open debate of issues when there are more than two opinions.

I agree with the sentiment, but the structure of the current system can't be expected to support more than two viable parties. An exception might be regional parties that jointly endorse a single presidential ticket (good luck with getting that to happen consistently), but that would still mean that there would only be two viable choices in any single race. To really have a broader choice, election methods would need to be changed to something that allows people to more fully express their preferences (e.g. range voting, Schulze method, etc.).

[toastman]

It's not that I want to see two right-winged parties, it's just that out of the two major parties the Republican party is the more fractured at the moment. I would like to see actual liberal and centrist parties with real political clout (the Democratic party is more center-right than anything really), but as that wouldn't happen without some major political shifting, I'd just be happier with more shades of red than we currently enjoy. We learn more through open debate of issues when there are more than two opinions.

I agree with the sentiment, but the structure of the current system can't be expected to support more than two viable parties. An exception might be regional parties that jointly endorse a single presidential ticket (good luck with getting that to happen consistently), but that would still mean that there would only be two viable choices in any single race. To really have a broader choice, election methods would need to be changed to something that allows people to more fully express their preferences (e.g. range voting, Schulze method, etc.).

There have been times when there were more than two viable options for President. And the system has procedures in place for the contingency of lacking a majority.

[Kevin Beckman]

As a Libertarian I can't help but to feel insulted but I have no idea why?

[Ex-Cyber]

There have been times when there were more than two viable options for President.

The only really popular third-party candidates I can think of all "spoiled" the election for the major party candidate closest to them: Roosevelt in 1912 (Wilson was elected with 42% of the popular vote), Wallace in 1968 (Nixon was elected with 43% of the popular vote), and Perot in 1992 (Clinton was elected with 43% of the popular vote). 1856 and 1860 also had more than two viable candidates, but that arguably had a lot to do with the fact that the country was tearing itself apart at the time; I'm not sure what general conclusions can reasonably be drawn from those elections.

[|darc|]

Perot in 1992

It's arguable that Perot would have won in 1992 if it weren't for canceling and restarting his campaign, though.

[|darc|]

Perot in 1992

It's arguable that Perot would have won in 1992 if it weren't for canceling and restarting his campaign, though.

[Stormwatch]

Welcome back to slavery, America!

[Quzar]

Welcome back to slavery, America!

Community service in exchange for public education makes sense. For college, community service in exchange for a discount also makes sense (and is not forced).

In high school, there was a graduation requirement of something like 25 hours. For the IB program, there was an additional requirement of 150 hours, at least 100 of which had to be within a single 'community service project' that you were responsible in some way for creating/managing.