Obama Jokes

[Kevin]

And indeed the reps choice of candidates is just ridiculous and an insult to the world seeing that the US president often has more to say in other countries than the local politicians have.

Heh. I'm a Weebl and Bob fan and I quite like the latest one which relates to your comments. http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/Satire/

I actually mostly agree with the rest of your post as well. I've thought about ways to make other parties viable in this country and can't figure one out. The 2 behemoths just co-opt everyone. And it's not that our political spectrum is narrower than other countries, it's just what is presented on a national level is shrunk. The parties each encompass a wide range of ideals and members of both parties can disagree strongly with major ideals of their party but the power the party has to get them elected is too great. If they don't pick a side they don't get in. If they do pick a side they can't be as vocal about all they really care about.

I think I'd like more parties and I believe if the Democrats and the Republicans actually let themselves be split into the smaller groups with the ideals that the members of those 2 parties really have we would see a lot of parties just like many of the European countries and that many would have very viable candidates for Congressional seats and state positions. But getting a president elected by the general populace (even though we don't technically vote for a president we vote for electors still) in that system would get interesting to say the least.

I think you would have to completely change the way we select presidents before you would be able to see more parties be viable in this country and I just don't see that happening any time soon either since while our system certainly has issues (I've yet to see a political system that doesn't) it does still seem to work well enough and a lot of people can live with that even if they don't really like it.


So um to be back on topic here are some bad Obama jokes I've heard recently.

Here's an interesting fact: If you add John McCain's age and Barack Obama's age together you'll get the number of times Obama usually says "uh" when answering a question.

And one more that kinda pokes fun at both the candidates, though again it's not really any good.

After Barack Obama claimed to have campaigned in 57 states, John McCain should have sent him the name of a good Alzheimer’s specialist.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I got my wall o'text up before you did:)

I've thought about ways to make other parties viable in this country and can't figure one out.

To solve a problem, you need to understand its causes. Consider: in our political system, in each election there can only be one winner. So, if you had multiple parties, then the biggest (i.e, the one with most members) would win. To compete, two or more of the smaller parties would need to join forces, thus becoming a single, (edit, unintentional truth) <strike>bugger</strike> bigger, party. The final effect is to generate two major parties. The hold outs would, for the most part, have no real effect on the process except when they took away enough votes from the major party closer to their viewpoint to allow the other party to win. This is called 'pissing away your vote'.

Now, imagine a system in which there are no Congressional Districts, and all the voters in the state vote for all the Congressmen. There are a number of ways that the voting could be done so that, on a single ballot, a voter could indicate his preferences and an order for those preferences. This would open up the potential for small parties to be better represented. The devil is, as always, in the details.

The odds of getting such changes implemented are slim. The very people who are in the best position to initiate the changes are the very people whose careers would be jeopardized. Ah, well, Jefferson was (as usual) right. Much like a carton of milk, the Constitution should have had an expiration date;)

--Pete

[Artega]

The problem with Obama jokes is that his supporters don't like them and other people can't tell that they are jokes.

The real joke is his campaign :D

[Artega]

It's still not funny.

I thought it was pretty good.

[Artega]

Or maybe McCain and Bush leave more openings?

More the former than the latter if posters here are an example.

[eppie]

Hi,

I'd dearly would love, and would support, changes to our laws to make the situation better. But that's the problem with being first, you don't have other's mistakes to learn from. Considering that, I'd say both that we're not doing too bad and most European nations aren't doing so good.
Funny, I watch a bit of CNN almost every morning. I've heard nothing from the candidates about abortion or patriotism. I've seen no real mud throwing. I'd think a rational person would consider the experience of the candidates an important issue -- or do you think presidents should be picked with a pin? And I have heard a lot of discussion of energy, the economy, our international involvement, and other matters of import. If you haven't heard them, it is because you haven't been listening. Perhaps a little information would make your opinions less hollow.

--Pete

With the only issues I mean the reason we people finally cast their votes. Where the image of the candidate or his stance on abortion turns out to be the deciding factor and not their energy policy etc.etc. or the fact that one candidate wants to leave Iraq 16 days earlier than the other

[Jester]

If I could make one small suggestion, which has the disadvantage of not being very comprehensive, but the advantage of being pretty easy to implement:

Slaying the Gerrymander

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

If I could make one small suggestion, which has the disadvantage of not being very comprehensive, but the advantage of being pretty easy to implement:

Slaying the Gerrymander

-Jester

Nope, the fool's errand that person assigned himself ignores the reality of politics, for all that I admire his attempt to make order of a chaotic system. Remember, Jester, in America politics is becoming increasingly tribal, not less so, as the social balkanization that's been going of for some thirty years sustains its momentum.

See Pete's post, a few up, about who needs to make the change, and who is likely most threatened by it. The change of district boundaries over time has been precisely that, over time.

Using an algorithm to solve a political problem smacks of Robert MacNamara.

No thanks.

Occhi

[Mordekhuul]

If I could make one small suggestion, which has the disadvantage of not being very comprehensive, but the advantage of being pretty easy to implement:

Slaying the Gerrymander

-Jester

I second the motion, and I live in Texas, where redistricting has been a colossal waste of time and the republican majority can be credited to managing to redistrict the state out of a number of formerly Democratic seats (which were themselves probably Democratic because of Gerrymandering as well, I'm sure).

[Jester]

Nope, the fool's errand that person assigned himself ignores the reality of politics, for all that I admire his attempt to make order of a chaotic system. Remember, Jester, in America politics is becoming increasingly tribal, not less so, as the social balkanization that's been going of for some thirty years sustains its momentum.

See Pete's post, a few up, about who needs to make the change, and who is likely most threatened by it. The change of district boundaries over time has been precisely that, over time.

Using an algorithm to solve a political problem smacks of Robert MacNamara.

No thanks.

Occhi

I'm not sure I understand what your argument is.

Yes, over time, districts have become more and more convoluted. That's the reality of politics, because it's been politics that has determined the redistricting. Cut that out with plain old math, and you cut out the crap. Gerrymandering takes the hypothetical of Pete's 51%-with-all-the-seats scenario, and transforms it into a reality through packing and cracking.

This is just using math to make up fair districting. It's hardly Robert MacNamara. And, in the end, who do you prefer, MacNamara? Or Tom DeLay?

I mean, seriously, an Austin district that goes down to the Rio Grande? Shameless does not even begin to describe it.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not sure I understand what your argument is.

Yes, over time, districts have become more and more convoluted. That's the reality of politics, because it's been politics that has determined the redistricting. Cut that out with plain old math, and you cut out the crap.

And just how do you think this math based system is going to get implemented? With the support and the votes of the people that are going to get kicked out of office by the change? That would require a lot of altruistic politicians, a breed that, if not mythical, is at least extinct.

This is just using math to make up fair districting.

It's not the technology, it's the implementation that becomes a political issue. Whether based on math or science or voodoo or magic, all political solutions are first and foremost based on *politics*. Those who forget that fail.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Hi,
And just how do you think this math based system is going to get implemented? With the support and the votes of the people that are going to get kicked out of office by the change? That would require a lot of altruistic politicians, a breed that, if not mythical, is at least extinct.

Though reading the case about Colorado on Jester's link was somewhat hopeful. It's slightly easier to get a state constitution amended than getting a federal law about it set up, and if you can get a couple of states to change the method with a supreme court precedent already in place that should help states defend their rights to do this how they want you have a chance. It won't be quick, but you have a chance. A few other states keep throwing up votes to follow the lead of Kansas in splitting electoral votes (I still haven't looked to see if that makes things closer to the popular vote or not but I think it will) and from what I've seen each vote is closer to getting that happen.

So it might be possible to get something like this done with a "grass roots" movement. I know the success rate of such movements are not hight, but they do have an influence on elected officials.

You get rid of gerrymandering and you might start making smaller parties more viable on the lower levels and hope for an effect moving upwards. It's seems like a potentially viable first baby step into making the system better and more open. Though it could just repeat history where the "viable 3rd party" just ends up become the "new second party" after one of the parties splits and joins the the other two.

[Jester]

And just how do you think this math based system is going to get implemented? With the support and the votes of the people that are going to get kicked out of office by the change? That would require a lot of altruistic politicians, a breed that, if not mythical, is at least extinct.

No kidding. But if the starting point is that politicians aren't going to vote for anything that disrupts the incumbents' status quo, so why even propose any such things, then you start at the finish line: perpetual unfair political gridlock.

Earlier in the thread, you said:

I'd dearly would love, and would support, changes to our laws to make the situation better.

Why even bother saying things like that, if the political reality is that such changes are basically impossible? "Better" for you means something along the lines of more representative, and the whole point of the existing Gerrymandered mess is to make it less representative in favour of either one party or another, or just incumbents (almost all Dems and Reps, natch) generally.

This also contributes to the serious problem of third parties gaining traction. You may put down the idea that third parties are locked out as "ignorance", and that's even strictly true in the historical sense. but there are modern safeguards laid down by both parties, in terms of funding, districting, media coverage, and all sorts of other stuff that make it even less likely today than in the past. New major parties coming into play three times in nearly two and a half centuries is not exactly evidence of a fertile ground for change. The largest changes in the political parties have been less emerging new parties, but rebrandings of existing ones, or parties that formed with much the same people out of the ashes of old ones. (Democratic-Republicans through to Dems, Whigs to Republicans.) Also, there has been no change in the Democratic/Republican split for the two largest parties since the time of Lincoln. So, yes, it's techincally true that third parties and new parties have come into existence, and old ones (Federalists) have died out. But the basic history is a fairly static two party system, at least for the last 150 years.

The splitline system at least offers an "everyone puts down their guns at once" solution that bypasses what has been the biggest political hurdle for redistricting reform: If "red" states do it before "blue" states, or vice versa, one side loses big until the other side decides to play fair, which will of course be sometime after hell freezes over. And so even people who favour fair districting in the abstract are not sufficiently naive to do it first. This, at least if it were adopted federally, would overcome that hurdle.

It's not the technology, it's the implementation that becomes a political issue. Whether based on math or science or voodoo or magic, all political solutions are first and foremost based on *politics*. Those who forget that fail.

Well, yeah, of course it will be. Is this not a sub-thread about political districting? I mean, geography and demographics and all sorts of other mathy apolical stuff is already used to determine districting. Why is this so different?

If the states went with TJ's solution of a new constitution every few presidencies, as you said, maybe something like this would get a fair shot every few decades. As it stands, I'm hardly holding my breath waiting for it to happen (in Canada, the US, or anywhere) but it would be a hell of a lot easier to implement than a piecemeal anti-Gerrymandering reform across 50 states based on who-the-hell-knows-what criteria.

-Jester

[eppie]

No kidding. But if the starting point is that politicians aren't going to vote for anything that disrupts the incumbents' status quo, so why even propose any such things, then you start at the finish line: perpetual unfair political gridlock.

-Jester

Question; do al the states have a fixed number of members in the house of representatives depending on the number of inhabitants or are they elected on a federal level? I mean say if California has 50 members one would need 2 % of the california vote to get elected, something doable for a third party (like the greens or the libertarians), however if say Nebraska has 6 members it would be nearly impossible for a green member to be chosen because he would need around 17 % of the votes.

If there was just one general election for all 435 members the chances of other party members to be chosen would be much bigger, and the consistency would be much closer to the popular vote.

[Crusader]

I came here expecting jokes. Instead I found politics.

I feel violated.

[Artega]

I came here expecting jokes. Instead I found politics.

I feel violated.

Jokes are on the first page. Obama supporters arguing with McCain supporters on pages two through whatever.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I came here expecting jokes. Instead I found politics.

And the difference is?

I feel violated.

Ha. If you feel violated now, wait until November.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Question; do al the states have a fixed number of members in the house of representatives depending on the number of inhabitants or are they elected on a federal level?

The seats in the House are divided among the states proportionately by the population of each state, with the proviso that each state has at least one representative. The federal laws do not, AFAIK, specify how the states with more than one representative determine how to appropriate their representatives. However, again AFAIK, all the state appropriate their representatives by dividing the state in 'congressional districts', each district electing one representative. Thus, for a third party candidate to be elected to congress, he must have the support of the majority of the people in his district. What is amazing is not how few third party (including independent) congressmen there are but that there are any at all.

The system made sense at the turn of the nineteenth century when communication was slow. As is often the case, the established system remains in force long after the reasons for its establishment no longer apply.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why even bother saying things like that, if the political reality is that such changes are basically impossible?

Because I'm a hopelessly incurable optimist? ;)

So, yes, it's techincally true that third parties and new parties have come into existence, and old ones (Federalists) have died out. But the basic history is a fairly static two party system, at least for the last 150 years.

That seems to support my statement that change is unlikely or at least glacially slow.

The splitline system at least offers an "everyone puts down their guns at once" solution that bypasses what has been the biggest political hurdle for redistricting reform: If "red" states do it before "blue" states, or vice versa, one side loses big until the other side decides to play fair, which will of course be sometime after hell freezes over. And so even people who favour fair districting in the abstract are not sufficiently naive to do it first. This, at least if it were adopted federally, would overcome that hurdle.

The problem is that the federal government does not, AFAIK, have any say on how states apportion their congressional seats. The Constitution does not address the issue, and thus the Tenth Amendment applies. For the federal government to set up such a system would require an amendment.

On the state level, on the other hand, there is a possibility that this could come about. Especially since it would be a case of the state government deciding how federal representatives are selected. But it would require a pretty big grass roots movement, something that I don't see happening with the typical apathetic and ignorant voter we've bred and nurtured.

I mean, geography and demographics and all sorts of other mathy apolical stuff is already used to determine districting. Why is this so different?

Politicians are people who want power. Setting up an automated system to make decisions takes power out of their hands. Thus, politicians are against automated systems. Aristotle would be proud.:)

If the states went with TJ's solution of a new constitution every few presidencies, as you said, maybe something like this would get a fair shot every few decades. As it stands, I'm hardly holding my breath waiting for it to happen (in Canada, the US, or anywhere) but it would be a hell of a lot easier to implement than a piecemeal anti-Gerrymandering reform across 50 states based on who-the-hell-knows-what criteria.

Had TJ been right in his assessment of mankind, then the Confederation would have worked and by now we'd have a fully anarchistic world. No need for government when everyone does what should be done for the common good. Wonderful concept, but then I think Enron.:)

--Pete

[Bolty]

Jokes are on the first page. Obama supporters arguing with McCain supporters on pages two through whatever.

Exactly. Crusader, just do what I do; grab some popcorn. Every once in a while I have to get off the couch and stop the punch-throwing, but otherwise it's damn tasty popcorn!

But just to be contributory to the thread in general: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnL9HRLNxIA (no, not a rickroll)

-Bolty