Next US President?

[SandChigger]

???

Congratulations, Komrad, you have succeeded in confusing me completely! Spasiba! :D

[Edric O]

By the way, if you're interested in seeing what communists actually think about Obama, have a look here.

[Dante]

The glass is always half empty, isn't it?

[Edric O]

Of course. If you're always pessimistic, you'll never be disappointed! ;)

On a more serious note, we communists don't like liberals. At all. Sure, they're better than conservatives, but only in the same way that getting the flu is better than getting cancer. Social democrats may be tolerable and well-meaning; liberals are not. And Obama is a liberal, not a social democrat. If this were 1945 and Clement Attlee had just been elected, I would be celebrating. But Obama is no Attlee.

[exatreide]

It was such an amazing election. My state went democratic for the first time since 1964 by about 10-30k votes. I volunteered about 20 days this year for the obama campaign and on election day yesterday.

We went to the democratic after party downtown, where about 120-150 people were gathered watching this gigantic projection screen. Watching and erupting into cheers as states were called for obama and boo's when mccain states were called.

When we got Pennsylvania the crowd went crazy, our firewall held. It was Mccain's only real chance of taking a blue state and we dominated him in it.  People were high fiveing and hugging.

Ohio was the best, no republican president had ever won the presidency with out Ohio. When we took it, it was all over. It didn't matter if Obama lost Indiana, we had this in the bag. When at the end of the night obama pulled ahead in this redist of red states (Indiana). Our collected worry, doubt, and fear came out. Every day canvased, every voter we registered, all of the time and energy we put into this paid off.

[Andrew]

Obamas speech was good. I hope he is able to deliver. Democrats control congress by a wide margin, so they should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

EDIT:

Local Ballot Measures

Some interesting stuff.

[jeff2429]

and why no one in their right mind would ever actually want to be in that position.

I forgot, being successful is soooo hard. ::) We shall see if Obama delivers on all his pie in the sky promises.

[Edric O]

I forgot, being successful is soooo hard. ::)

It can be - depending on which job you're trying to be successful at, and what you define as "success."

More to the point, a capitalist economy can never reach 0% unemployment - this fact was demonstrated by none other than ultra-right-wing economist Milton Friedman. And thus someone, somewhere, will always have to be unemployed. Unless of course we introduce socialism.

[Da_Ze_Ir]

Edric, with all due respect, liberals make economy while socialists spread the money, liberals give the opportunity of fortune to a part of the population (hopefully those with ambition) while socialism spreads poverty to all. Liberalism is the engine of economy while socialism is the concession.

Communism was good for one thing: bringing countries like Russia out of the middle ages. For all other purposes it was a disaster. It takes away people's ambition, passion, sense of possesion and ultimately reason to live. It evens out poverty. Fortunately it is dying. Bye-bye communism and good luck Edrick, I hope you'll get over it!

As for Obama, I'm happy he won because I though I liked his character. I don't know much anything about the matter and haven't seen the other candidate speak. I wasn't thinking about who's the liberal and who the socialist - that doesn't make much difference in the USA, I think. I also hear the opposition had been in power before and it's great that matters changed, especially after the disastrous Bush administration. It's also cool that Obama is half black.

[Edric O]

Edric, with all due respect, liberals make economy while socialists spread the money

I'm sorry, but neither of those is true. Liberals do not make economies grow. Most industrialized economies have been growing continuously most of the time for the past 200 years. Yes, some of those growing economies were liberal - and many others were not. Economic growth, by itself, is not difficult to achieve. Pretty much every ideology has done it at one time or another. Liberals, conservatives, social democrats, stalinists, centrists, even fascists! Liberals should stop taking credit for being able to do what everyone else has done before them. (and on that note, please watch this interview)

As for your second assertion, that is also untrue. Socialists do not want to "spread the money." We want to establish collective property over the means of production, so that workers can earn the wealth that is rightfully theirs and so that all people can democratically participate in making economic decisions. Under capitalism, the capitalists exploit the workers and collect huge amounts of undeserved wealth in the form of profit. We do not want to let them continue doing that and just take away some of their wealth to give it to the workers; we want to put an end to capitalist exploitation altogether.

liberals give the opportunity of fortune to a part of the population (hopefully those with ambition)

Well yes, that's true, liberalism does give the opportunity of fortune to a few ambitious, ruthless and greedy individuals. So does every other oppressive ideology or system. The slave trade was a great business opportunity for ambitious European adventurers, for example.

Giving some people the opportunity to exploit others is not a good thing.

while socialism spreads poverty to all.

Really? Where and when? Socialism has never been fully implemented anywhere for any extended period of time.

If you're talking about the Soviet system - which implemented some aspects of socialism - I need to remind you that economic growth in the Soviet Union was on average higher than economic growth in the United States. The Americans had a very large head start and the Soviets never managed to catch up, but they were in fact moving forward faster (until the 1980s).

If you're talking about social democracy - which implemented other aspects of socialism - I need to remind you that the most social democratic countries in the world (the Scandinavian countries) have the highest Human Development Index according to the United Nations and are by all accounts the best places to live in the world.

So, no matter what you meant by "socialism", I'm afraid you were wrong.

Liberalism is the engine of economy while socialism is the concession.

See above. At various times in various places, quasi-socialist societies have surpassed liberal societies in terms of economic growth and standards of living. All the economic performances of liberalism have been matched or surpassed by non-liberal societies in the past.

Communism was good for one thing: bringing countries like Russia out of the middle ages. For all other purposes it was a disaster.

The system that was implemented in Russia and Eastern Europe was never communism - in fact it never even claimed to be communism, it claimed to be a transitional stage on the way to communism - and it was a great success by your standards. I say "your standards" because you seem to be concerned exclusively by economic growth, and the Soviet Union did in fact achieve very good economic growth for many decades until the 1970s. So what's the problem?

Of course, I don't support the Soviet system; but I bring it up to remind you that history does not support your argument. Certainly, liberal economies have been doing better (in terms of economic growth) over the past 10-20 years, but this is a very short period of time by historical standards, and there is a strong possibility that the current financial crisis will mark the end of liberal supremacy.

You also talk about "other purposes." So I'm curious - what makes a good society, in your view? I hope it's not just economic growth alone. Economic growth is necessary, but nowhere near sufficient for a good society.

It takes away people's ambition, passion, sense of possesion and ultimately reason to live.

If you mean that we communists want to take away the ambition to exploit and oppress, the passion to conquer and dominate, the sense of possession over those things that rightfully belong to the entire community, and the reason to live of those people who take joy in the suffering of others - then you are correct.

The capitalists, the enemies of mankind, are very passionate and ambitious indeed. And we must be every bit as passionate in our sense of justice and love of humanity as they are in their drive to enrich themselves out of other people's labour and bend the world to their will. They have their money and connections, but one thing we have in much greater quantity than they do is reason to live - we live for the betterment of humanity, for the ending of poverty, warfare, and man-made suffering. They live only for themselves.

[Andrew]

AP: Obama wins North Carolina

Obama keeps winning.

The Jesusland pic of North America will have to be updated. It won't look as cool as the 2004 version though.

Palin Didn't Know Africa Is A Continent, Says Fox News Reporter

Apparently didn't know who were members of NAFTA either.

Obamas chief of staff received $250,000 from freddie Mac during 2000-20002

Obama workers not getting paid with video.

[Sneakgab]

We should all give our condolences to the crushed ''ambitions'' of slave traders, monarchs,e.t.c  :P

Not being able to own people is ridiculous, why are we not allowed to pursue this ambitious goal and the fortune it could yield?

(edit2)

Well, at least all the people in America still have the option of further suffering via unemployment.

Also, there is always the option of plunging man meat (either your's [if you can, all that meat being out of the way due to insufficient nutrition if you are unemployed will probably result your flexibility being sufficient] or the man meat of the nearest ''passionate'' individual which may bestow the advantage of gaining much needed sustenance (high protein concentration, it has been said) from the products of the copulation. Nothing like that other other 'white' meat.

(edit)

Bleh, has anyone observed the ridiculous likening of Obama to Martin (I think, don't pay much attention to silly nonsense on the TV [in this case] or generally of any form when it is being expounded in my presence). There is no similarity generally and obviously even if Obama was doing much in the fields of racial equality it could not be compared in magnitude to the actions of said famous activist.

There pretty much isn't enough racial discrimination remaining for Obama to possibly have as big an impact on the field even if he eradicated all remaining racial discrimination...

Well, maybe that is not true. It's not like I know anything about the racial discrimination in America.

Regardless, it is pretty obvious that this favorable comparison that is being paraded around is absurd. Hearing the people on CNN speaking about voting for him because he is an activist to the extent of Martin is... Sad.

[Khan]

Who are you to say someone else doesn't have the right to put a monetary value on my time? wait...

[Andrew]

Who is Martin? Martin Luther king? I thought for a sec you were talking about Paul Martin (former finance minister for canada, and prime minister).

Linking Obama and Martin is stupid. The only connection they have is skin colour. Martin was an activist for equal rights, Obama is a politician whose campaign raised $350 million and had an easy opponent. You could only link Obama and Martin if Obama forced say gay marriage upon all states (equal rights). But that won't happen.

[Dante]

Of course not. California has nicely demonstrated that enough otherwise sensible people can be scaremongered into the... inadvisable.

Of course. If you're always pessimistic, you'll never be disappointed! ;)

That seems unusual, considering that you have to be rather optimistic about people to believe in communism at all, I would have thought.

[Andrew]

Palin backlash continues as Republican lawyers head to Alaska to take back her $150,000 campaign clothes

Yep, your average hockey mom gets to spend $150,000 on clothes in 2 months.

She also wanted to give a speech before McCains concession speech but was told to stfu.

[Sneakgab]

McCain (turning and giving a stare before speaking): Haven't you done enough damage already? ;D

[Khan]

Of course not. California has nicely demonstrated that enough otherwise sensible people can be scaremongered into the... inadvisable.

Yeah damn those people democratically deciding on their own laws... Pricks

[Andrew]

Remember when whites said blacks couldn't get married to whites?

This election apparently like 70% of blacks went and voted against gay marriage. The oppressed have become the oppressors.

Most of California's Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban

[Edric O]

That seems unusual, considering that you have to be rather optimistic about people to believe in communism at all, I would have thought.

You have to be optimistic about humanity's long term prospects in order to be a communist, yes. But you don't have to be optimistic about the short term or the near future. And the near future is what I'm pessimistic about.

[Edric O]

Remember when whites said blacks couldn't get married to whites?

This election apparently like 70% of blacks went and voted against gay marriage. The oppressed have become the oppressors.

It's not nearly the same level of oppression. Back in 1960, it wasn't just that blacks couldn't get legally married to whites (in some states; not including California as far as I know). The much bigger problem was that blacks and whites weren't even allowed to have relationships or live together in the same house. The level of oppression against interracial couples in places like Virginia in 1960 was more similar to the current situation of gay couples in Saudi Arabia rather than California.

[Dante]

Yeah damn those people democratically deciding on their own laws... Pricks

And those people who democratically voted the other way? Those who are now trapped under someone else's law? How does this effect them exactly?

It's not nearly the same level of oppression. Back in 1960, it wasn't just that blacks couldn't get legally married to whites (in some states; not including California as far as I know). The much bigger problem was that blacks and whites weren't even allowed to have relationships or live together in the same house. The level of oppression against interracial couples in places like Virginia in 1960 was more similar to the current situation of gay couples in Saudi Arabia rather than California.

The situation is comparable though, not to mention ironic. In the words of my old english teacher, there is nothing so dangerous as a victim given power.

[Khan]

And those people who democratically voted the other way? Those who are now trapped under someone else's law? How does this effect them exactly?

But isn't it the point of a democracy that the majority rule? How do you propose a nation comes to decide on laws?

[Andrew]

Yes there is majority rule democracy, but when it goes against certain things such as charter of rights and individual protections.

Examples:

Sunday shopping. A vote was held and most voted against sunday shopping. It was taken to court and the businesses won and were able to open on Sunday. Legally the government could not ban sunday shopping (unless they want to go against the courts).

Same for same sex marriage in Canada. I don't think there was a vote to see if majority wanted it. It was taken to supreme court and they decided that not allowing it was against charter of rights and freedoms. So gay marriage was allowed and now all provinces have to allow it. To deny gay marriage is illegal, even if the majority wanted it. Unless of course the majority changed the courts.

So because in the 1700s or whenever a majority approved of slavery, that meant it was ok?

[Edric O]

Yes there is majority rule democracy, but when it goes against certain things such as charter of rights and individual protections.

And who decides the contents of that charter of rights and individual protections?

So because in the 1700s or whenever a majority approved of slavery, that meant it was ok?

First of all, we don't know if a majority ever approved of slavery, because there was never a vote or poll on the issue. Keep in mind that slave owners were always a small minority of the population.

Second, when a majority approves of something, that means it should be legal. It doesn't make it right or morally justified, but it does make it legal. Morality and the law are two different things. Not everything that is legal is moral, and not everything that is illegal is immoral.

Same for same sex marriage in Canada. I don't think there was a vote to see if majority wanted it. It was taken to supreme court and they decided that not allowing it was against charter of rights and freedoms.

So if the supreme court decided that slavery should be legal, what then?

SOMEONE must have the power to change laws - whether it's the majority, or the supreme court, or both, or whoever. And there is always the possibility that the "someone" might decide to approve bad or immoral laws. That's just a risk you have to take. Majority rule is merely the best way to decide on new laws and changes to old laws. It's not the perfect way, because there is no perfect way.