Obama Best for Canada?

[Guest American Woman]

It's "one for one" for the American delegates living in Canada, so that doesn't tell us much.

I just find it odd that delegates for the POTUS election live in Canada. Seems to me the Canadians that they spend every day with would have an influence over them. I know some on this board say Canadians have no influence over our election, but I think this could prove that notion wrong.

The Obama phenomenon is not about Obama as much as it's a statement against Bush and everything he has stood for. Nobody is voting for Obama because of his policies, as nobody knows yet what they really are. Hillary's connection to politics of the past, will be her demise and not because she is incapable or did a hell of lot wrong. People want a complete disconnect from politics of the last 8 years and that's what it's all about in a nutshell. The Rebublicans are merely going through the motions and have no chance whatsoever of being re elected.

I still have a bit of a hard time understanding the Obama phenomenon. It's true that no one knows what his policies are, and that has me a bit concerned-- that along with his lack of experience. I wonder if he can be tough enough to stand up to the opposition. Whatever else I think, I do think Hillary would have no problem in that regard. I actually am leaning towards her now. To me Obama just doesn't come across as forceful enough.

As for the Republicans chance of winning-- I wish I shared your optimism. After Bush's win in 2004, nothing would surprise me any more. I do hope you're right, though.

As a side note, you are better informed and more knowledgeable regarding this election than a lot of Americans are.

Edited February 17, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I have learned a massive amount about the U.S. elections throughout this campaign, although I will say that Einsteins Theory of Relativity is easier to understand than caucuses, primaries and who gets to vote what and where etc. The rules and regulations of how an election is conducted have nothing to do with who we think will win in November. The people go in to a booth and mark an x on a ballot, the end.

Looks like you have not learned enough (yet). The "rules of an election" have everything to do with who will be elected, from names appearing on each state ballot, to absentee balloting, ballot types, provisional ballots, electors, etc. If you have only been watching from afar for only 7 years, perhaps you missed the lessons of election year 2000. It's OK that you don't know all the details...you're not expected to know. Hell, many Americans know less than you do.

I have followed with avid interest, how the U.S. has been run thoughout the past 7 years. On that basis, as well as the fact that McCain goes against what the majority of Americans want (the war ended, a vastly improved health care system, no tax reductions for the rich) I am sticking to my story that the Republicans don't stand a chance. McCain is a very old 72 years old and out of touch with reality, right along side of the current regime. Oh, and lets not forget that his own party doesn't trust him either.

Your prediction has been noted. But only Americans will decide if you are right or wrong.

[HisSelf]

What am I missing? How in the hell can someone with the id Bush_Cheney2004 have any credibility here? You blew it long ago, bubba.

[bush_cheney2004]

What am I missing? How in the hell can someone with the id Bush_Cheney2004 have any credibility here? You blew it long ago, bubba.

That's what they said in November 2004 too.....LOL!

[BubberMiley]

That's what they said in November 2004 too.....LOL!

Oh, come on. You can come up with a better comeback than reference to a stale victory from nearly four years ago.

[Dog]

I have learned a massive amount about the U.S. elections throughout this campaign, although I will say that Einsteins Theory of Relativity is easier to understand than caucuses, primaries and who gets to vote what and where etc. The rules and regulations of how an election is conducted have nothing to do with who we think will win in November. The people go in to a booth and mark an x on a ballot, the end.

Your acquisition of massive amounts of American electoral knowledge must be relative to starting with out any. The rules and regulations governing the november election have everything to do with the outcome such as whether or not the canidates chose to run with federal funds or private contributions . I will not go into the many other regulatory variables since you are having trouble even grasping the concepts of the caucus and primary systems but you should know most Americans will pull a lever or push a button and not mark an X in november .

Edited February 22, 2008 by Dog

[Guest American Woman]

...you should know most Americans will pull a lever or push a button and not mark an X in november .

And you should know that it's pretty obvious that she was speaking figuratively.

[Dog]

And you should know that it's pretty obvious that she was speaking figuratively.

Given the ignorance of her other statements why would i assume that ?

[Carinthia]

Given the ignorance of her other statements why would i assume that ?

You are right, I am still ignorant to the rules of American elections. The fact that superdelegates can over rule a majority vote of the people, seems less than democratic to me. Also the the fact that the your collegiate electoral gang can also over rule the popular vote, is also less than democratic to me. No wonder people in the U.S. don't bother to go out and vote. I also forgot about the fact that you use computers for casting a ballot where there are no paper trails and the machines are so easily open to fraud. This really is a travesty, IMO.

I must admit the more I learn, the more frustrated I become at the overwhelming confusion and seeming incompetence of your whole system. As you all rely so much on lobbyists to run the show down there, why not get some lobbying underway to set about simplifying your elections? It all seems very broken to me.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I must admit the more I learn, the more frustrated I become at the overwhelming confusion and seeming incompetence of your whole system. As you all rely so much on lobbyists to run the show down there, why not get some lobbying underway to set about simplifying your elections? It all seems very broken to me.

Incompetence? Broken? From afar it may look that way, but further education would reveal why it was purposely designed to accomodate democracy within a constitutional republic of small states....medium states...and large states. The election system works as well as we wish it to. No nation has a perfect approach.

Even at its worst (say in 2000 or 1960), the world knew that a decision would be made without riots, upheval, military coup, or falling government.

[Guest American Woman]

Given the ignorance of her other statements why would i assume that ?

And what makes you think you're so knowledgable about American elections?

[Carinthia]

Even at its worst (say in 2000 or 1960), the world knew that a decision would be made without riots, upheval, military coup, or falling government.

Hmmmm....the election of 2000 sure looked like a coup to me. Just done on a more sophisticated level than a militia storming the Whitehouse. And excuse me, but the world DID wonder...as did many Americans from what I've been reading over the past 7 years.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Carinthia

[Carinthia]

Incompetence? Broken? From afar it may look that way,

May I remind you that we now have the Internet to gain knowledge, which makes it "not so far away" but merely a click away. We can all do that at the very same moment. There would be no earthly reason that I can think of as to why we as Canadians, cannot access the very same information that you can. Give me a break!

Edited February 23, 2008 by Carinthia

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmmm....the election of 2000 sure looked like a coup to me. Just done on a more sophisticated level than a militia storming the Whitehouse. And excuse me, but the world DID wonder...as did many Americans from what I've been reading over the past 7 years.

Now you're just adding partisanship on top of unqualified criticism of another nation's election process, which would have been identical had Mr. Gore prevailed. Bottom line....you (i.e. the world) watch our elections with great interest....the outcome is never a sure thing.

The past 7 years were just more of the same American political experience with ups and downs for many depending on their point of view. The foundation itself is not in question, even if candidates think they need to change it. Good luck with that.

Perhaps you are comfortably smug in passing judgement on an election process that works at the local, state, and federal levels for a nation of 300,000,000 while having less direct democracy in your own political system. That's OK.

Edited February 23, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Carinthia]

Perhaps you are comfortably smug in passing judgement on an election process that works at the local, state, and federal levels for a nation of 300,000,000 while having less direct democracy in your own political system. That's OK.

Here we go again. Blame it on Canada! Sheesh! Think I'll head back into my Igloo now.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here we go again. Blame it on Canada! Sheesh! Think I'll head back into my Igloo now.

What? Did you think you can sling criticism while receiving none in return? Blame it on America...Sheesh!

[Dog]

You are right, I am still ignorant to the rules of American elections. The fact that superdelegates can over rule a majority vote of the people, seems less than democratic to me. Also the the fact that the your collegiate electoral gang can also over rule the popular vote, is also less than democratic to me. No wonder people in the U.S. don't bother to go out and vote. I also forgot about the fact that you use computers for casting a ballot where there are no paper trails and the machines are so easily open to fraud. This really is a travesty, IMO.

First i am a Canadian but i have lived in America off and on for almost 17 years . Superdelagates are very much a tool of the left (democrats) who have about 800 of them compared to the right (republicans) who have just over a 100 of them . I do see the reason for superdelagates in numbers such as the republicans have them , just over two per state but not as the democrats have them controlling over 20 % of the vote . I would agree with you that the way the democratic party uses them it does seem less then democratic , but that is nothing new for the left.

The electoral college is not a gang but a provision set down by the founding fathers for several reasons . The main ones were to assure the small states would not be dictated to by the large ones and someone running for president would never consider the issues of the smaller states if he only needed the votes of the larger states to be elected. The other main reason is to create a fire wall if you will , to stop a king or tyrant who may try to dupe the people in direct elections . For a better explanation you would need to read the Federalist Papers and what Hamilton had to say on this .

Your premise that Americans dont vote in numbers they should because of things such as the electoral college or superdelagates rings hollow since Canadians and Americans voted in almost the exact same numbers in 2004 about 61 % . There are many factors for low voter turn out but none you seem to grasp .

Computer voting in 2004 was only used in about 25 % of the vote , and about 70 % of them were non VVAPT { voter verified audit paper trail } I am not a fan of these and believe you will see a change in this practice in the near future .

The American system does have flaws but compared to Canada where the electorate has no say in picking the party leaders and no direct vote for the leader of the country i think it is far superior . May i suggest you better educate yourself on the workings of the American system before running off at the mouth making statements that only make you look follish .

[Carinthia]

Because everybody is voting for one leader, why the necessity to protect smaller states? Why not just accept the vote of the country as a whole? Oh, never mind, I'll go read it as there's sure to be a complicated reason I'll have to plow through.

Agreed about our system. Having to vote for an MP that you like when you dislike the party or leader he/she represents is less than satisfactory for me.

[Guest American Woman]

I would agree with you that the way the democratic party uses them it does seem less then democratic , but that is nothing new for the left.

And you have the gall to talk about other's "ignorance."

again.

[Guest American Woman]

May I remind you that we now have the Internet to gain knowledge, which makes it "not so far away" but merely a click away. We can all do that at the very same moment. There would be no earthly reason that I can think of as to why we as Canadians, cannot access the very same information that you can. Give me a break!

With all due respect, learning something from the internet and living it are two different things as in reading about something and living it are two different things. I agree people can gain a lot of knowledge from the internet, but it's not comparable to living here. (Yet there are those who live here who chose to remain ignorant, but I'm not referring to them.) I try to tell my BF that; that reading about the goings on in America is not the same as being an American. It's the same with Canada. We can read about your nation and learn what we will, but to presume it's the same as being a Canadian, that we are as familiar with the workings and goings-on in Canada, would be just plain wrong.

I can see both points of view here. I can understand your annoyance at someone who acts as if you don't have a clue as to what's going on because you're not an American, but like I told my BF, I get tired of the constant world opinion regarding our elections, candidates, and reasons for voting the way we do, and the 'judgeing' that goes along with it, too. I get tired of others thinking they "know" all about our nation. Until one lives in a nation one can't really know all that. We know what we want domestically while the rest of the world is focused more in international issues. It does get a bit annoying to have someone from another nation tell us what is or isn't going to happen in our own country.

Edited February 23, 2008 by American Woman

[Carinthia]

With all due respect, learning something from the internet and living it are two different things as in reading about something and living it are two different things. I agree people can gain a lot of knowledge from the internet, but it's not comparable to living here. (Yet there are those who live here who chose to remain ignorant, but I'm not referring to them.) I try to tell my BF that; that reading about the goings on in America is not the same as being an American. It's the same with Canada. We can read about your nation and learn what we will, but to presume it's the same as being a Canadian, that we are as familiar with the workings and goings-on in Canada, would be just plain wrong.

I can see both points of view here. I can understand your annoyance at someone who acts as if you don't have a clue as to what's going on because you're not an American, but like I told my BF, I get tired of the constant world opinion regarding our elections, candidates, and reasons for voting the way we do, and the 'judgeing' that goes along with it, too. I get tired of others thinking they "know" all about our nation. Until one lives in a nation one can't really know all that. We know what we want domestically while the rest of the world is focused more in international issues. It does get a bit annoying to have someone from another nation tell us what is or isn't going to happen in our own country.

I don't profess to know all about your nation A.M. As well, I am certainly still somewhat ignorant as to how the elections work there, but I'm learning. It's only in recent years that I have paid much attention. I believe that George Bush has piqued the interest of many people around the world who otherwise have had little daily interest. This election is hugely important to the entire world because of the Bush regime and everything that has come to pass. That is the reality of his legacy at this juncture in time.

When I peruse the comments from both Americans and Canadians regarding Canada and our own elections I also become annoyed by some of them because I simply disagree with some them. I don't believe you have to live in a country to form an opinion regarding how it operates. You and I don't live in parts of the world where blatant human rights atrocities are committed by these countries own Governments but that doesn't mean we should hold back an opinion because we have not lived it. Some countries in the world have no democratic system and we all have an opinion about that and many of us have never lived it.

I would not assume that Americans on this forum are not entitled to form opinions about Canada from learning about Canada via editorials, blogs on the net, watching TV, reading books or listening to Canada's own people express their own opinions or relate their own experiences.

If my ignorance shows through in some of my posts by all means bash me over the head but I will not be gagged because our American neighbours are just tired of hearing it.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Carinthia

[Oleg Bach]

I don't profess to know all about your nation A.M. As well, I am certainly still somewhat ignorant as to how the elections work there, but I'm learning. It's only in recent years that I have paid much attention. I believe that George Bush has piqued the interest of many people around the world who otherwise have had little daily interest. This election is hugely important to the entire world because of the Bush regime and everything that has come to pass. That is the reality of his legacy at this juncture in time.

When I peruse the comments from both Americans and Canadians regarding Canada and our own elections I also become annoyed by some of them because I simply disagree with some them. I don't believe you have to live in a country to form an opinion regarding how it operates. You and I don't live in parts of the world where blatant human rights atrocities are committed by these countries own Governments but that doesn't mean we should hold back an opinion because we have not lived it. Some countries in the world have no democratic system and we all have an opinion about that and many of us have never lived it.

I would not assume that Americans on this forum are not entitled to form opinions about Canada from learning about Canada via editorials, blogs on the net, watching TV, reading books or listening to Canada's own people express their own opinions or relate their own experiences.

If my ignorance shows through in some of my posts by all means bash me over the head but I will not be gagged because our American neighbours are just tired of hearing it.

[Oleg Bach]

Well here is somemore Canadian observant doom and gloom from north of the boarder. You folks down south have come to the end of your empirical era..Because your system is so top heavy and dependent on great wealth in order to place a president that the best are not in a position to particiapate or ever hope to become president - so it has gotten to the point where the worst are elected and those of inferiour mind heart and spirit now rule. Mammonism or the worship of money...is the state religion - so the greedy and the crooked thrive while the good and honourable are trampled on...it's over - and it is down hill from here on in. Really - have you had a good look at the eyes of McCaine and Clinton? - and think of it - Obama getting in simply on the fact that his skin is dark! That is not a good reason for placing a king on a throne..Your system has peaked as all do and now it's a matter of time that you will be a huge third world nation. Debached and corrupt - are not to strong of terms. The question is will Obama be good for Canada? Personally it will be a warm and fuzzy few months and then you will wonder how you managed to elect a second Bush with the same size of brain.

[Dog]

quote name='American Woman' date='Feb 23 2008, 06:06 AM' post='293941']

And you have the gall to talk about other's "ignorance."

again.

The misuse of the word Democratic to refer to the Democrat party is perhaps the most common fopah in political discussions . On the Sunday talk shows i must have heard it a half dozen times by the likes of Russert and other political wags . If that is all you could find in what i posted to correct your grasping at straws .

Returning to the discussion i doubt Obamamania will with stand the scrutiny it is sure to have in the general election . Repeating hope change , change hope over and over will only take you so far thus his impact on Canada will be nil.