The World Hopes for Its First President
-
@chango70 said:
@rickw said:
@unknownuser said:
...America, already said to be on the decline, will look all the smaller for having failed to redeem itself with the election of a young black man with African and South Asian roots and a Middle Eastern middle name...
Man, what racially-motivated stupidity to say we should elect Obama because he's a minority. If someone said we should elect McCain because he's white, it would be equally stupid. Equally stupid is saying that electing Obama would "redeem" the USA.
Should we elect a black man as president? Sure, no problem - as long as he's the right one. Obama just isn't the right one.
I don't think you understand Rick. Obama isn't just black, he is of mix-origin...
You completely missed his point. The Newsweek article is saying we need to elect Obama specifically because he's black, not because of his policies. This is liberal guilt, pure and simple.
-
-
-
Thanks Eric. I think these smilies are silly.
-
is that not the point of a smilie?
he he
pav
-
Yeah, Bruce...it's gonna be a long day into the night! Since I can't seem to shake the worry, I wish I could just get drunk and wake up tomorrow with the news...but I can't 8-(
-
Tom.
Have no fear, I predict no suprise in the results. In fact I predict about 340 to 180 for Obama in the electoral votes and 8 senate seat from Republicans to Democrats.
-
Oh, it's not really fear...more anticipation mixed with the hard learned wisdom of age: things are often not as they seem :`) I did just see that Chuck Todd is thinking we'll know if an Obama win is assured by a little after 8PM EST...after that it's a toss-up nearly to the end. Relief may be sooner than I thought...your optimism continues to help too.
-
@unknownuser said:
If he looses I would say democracy will have to be redefined for the average person who thinks his vote makes a difference.
On the contrary, the Electoral College empowers the average person in the less populous states . Without it, the candidates would only have to win over the voters in a few densely-populated locations, and would be free to completely ignore the issues faced by people in other areas.
The Electoral College is a combination of equal and proportional state representation - 435 House seats + 100 Senate seats + 3 DC seats = 538. It's a fitting system for a representative republic.
-
Not very democratic is it?
One man one vote!!
Popular vote should determine the winner, and you know it.
-
For me, if all the states let/required their delegates to vote with the people of their separate districts, rather than as a state together, the system would work more as intended...a better mix of popular vote and equal representation.
-
This thread was intended to be about a worldview of the posted article, which was about a rather amazingly substantial percentage of the world community watching to see what they can expect from us (the US) in the next few years. Consequently I promised myself not to be sucked into the expected myopic partisan infighting…not this time. But Rick, your latest leap of reason here goes beyond the pail of this promise of patience:
@rickw said:
@unknownuser said:
The rest of the world, for its part, will see something different. America, already said to be on the decline, will look all the smaller for having failed to redeem itself with the election of a young black man with African and South Asian roots and a Middle Eastern middle name. And it will look smaller still for having had the opportunity to do so, yet failing to see the opportunity, let alone capitalize on it and breaking a line that goes back more than 200 years in the United States. To the rest of the world, in electing another Republican America will have appeared not only to extend the agonies of the Bush years, but to have missed a historical chance for which it's hard to find a precedent or parallel in any country: the ultimate triumph of a long-oppressed minority.
Man, what racially-motivated stupidity to say we should elect Obama because he's a minority. If someone said we should elect McCain because he's white, it would be equally stupid. Equally stupid is saying that electing Obama would "redeem" the USA.
Should we elect a black man as president? Sure, no problem - as long as he's the right one. Obama just isn't the right one.
The article in fact indicated the election of Obama in spite of his race might be credible “tell” of the awakening and enlightenment of “Joe the US Citizen”, thus adding some hope to the mix of the future in the minds of those watching from afar. Electing him because of his race would obviously be seen as more pandering insincerity similar to McCain’s choice of Palin…as indicated later in the article as a big reason for the demise of McCain’s popularity abroad.
-
@bellwells said:
You completely missed his point. The Newsweek article is saying we need to elect Obama specifically because he's black, not because of his policies. This is liberal guilt, pure and simple.
No it doesn't! What article are you reading? It says that he EMBODIES change which include the fact that he is of mixed origin but that also including change from the existing trajectory US is on.
-
@solo said:
Not very democratic is it?
One man one vote!!
Popular vote should determine the winner, and you know it.
No it isn't democratic, because we don't have a democracy - we have a representative republic. And no, popular vote should not determine the presidency. Don't tell me what you think I know, because you're dead wrong. Period.
-
RickW wrote:
@unknownuser said:
No it isn't democratic, because we don't have a democracy
Yet we feel the urge to promote/force Democracy around the world...
Maybe we should take our own advice or stop shoving a system we do not subscribe to down everyone's throats.
-
@solo said:
RickW wrote:
@unknownuser said:
No it isn't democratic, because we don't have a democracy
Yet we feel the urge to promote/force Democracy around the world...
Maybe we should take our own advice or stop shoving a system we do not subscribe to down everyone's throats.
Exactly.
-
@tomsdesk said:
@rickw said:
@unknownuser said:
America, already said to be on the decline, will look all the smaller for having failed to redeem itself with the election of a young black man with African and South Asian roots and a Middle Eastern middle name.
The article in fact indicated the election of Obama in spite of his race might be credible “tell” of the awakening and enlightenment of “Joe the US Citizen”, thus adding some hope to the mix of the future in the minds of those watching from afar. Electing him because of his race would obviously be seen as more pandering insincerity similar to McCain’s choice of Palin…as indicated later in the article as a big reason for the demise of McCain’s popularity abroad.
I didn't mean to hijack, but there is relevance.
In the referenced paragraph, the author asserts that America needs to redeem itself by electing a "young black man" in this election. This is in no way diminished by the author's having formed it in the inverse (the statement by the author is "if ~p then ~q", which is the inverse of "if p then q"). It's simple logic, far from being "beyond the pale" (unless you intended to say that simple logic is uncommon - in that case, I would totally agree with you). If needed, I can go phrase by phrase to explain things.
As for its relevance to the broader discussion - until France, Germany, Great Britain, etc., elect minorities for their top posts, it's dumb to think we need to be redeemed in the eyes of the world by electing a minority candidate. That is what is so ingratiating about that paragraph, and why it smacks of emotionalism. It's particularly dumb to argue that our vote should be influenced by what the world thinks. I strongly doubt any other nation selects its leader by what the rest of the world thinks, so why should we?
-
Rick, in 2004 the world wanted anyone but Bush and we voted that prick back in, hence bucking the world opinion and see how that worked for us? I say the world and majority Americans have got it right this time.
Hope you show dignity in defeat.
We must not forget that most countries have got an invested interest in the USA (see how republican economic crisis has effected the world), hell China and India practically own us. So their opinions DO matter, it's comforting to know that their confidence in us will be on the up from tomorrow.
-
I'm following this link tonight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7700298.stm
-
@solo said:
RickW wrote:
@unknownuser said:
No it isn't democratic, because we don't have a democracy
Yet we feel the urge to promote/force Democracy around the world...
Maybe we should take our own advice or stop shoving a system we do not subscribe to down everyone's throats.
Now there's something we agree on. If a nation has a king/queen, maharaja, sultan, czar, parliament, senate, benevolent dictator (highly unlikely, but remotely possible), grand poobah, whatever, that's their business. If they want to peacefully restructure their government, fine (it can be done - we did). We can promote and encourage a system where the people have a voice, but we have no business forcing it.
But then, on the other hand, what responsibility do we (who have the means) have to those who are oppressed (and don't have the means)? Darfur, Bosnia, Sudan, etc., clearly have (or had) problems. To what extent should the US get involved in places where there is a humanitarian crisis rooted in a malevolent government system? The "haves" giving to the "have-nots" is central to Obama's philosophy, so does that extend to international affairs? Of course, those questions are for another thread, as I don't want to be accused of hijacking this one.
Advertisement