Who would the World Elect?
November 18, 2007 9:29 PM Subscribe
Who would the world elect for President of the United States?
It's well-known that Afghanistanis are diehard Ron Paul supporters. You didn't know?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:34 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:34 PM on November 18, 2007
This is a completely useless site. It will believe anything you tell it regarding country of origin. It doesn't even try the most basic of IP-address-based checks.
posted by jedicus at 9:35 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by jedicus at 9:35 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
If I worked on the campaign of a runner-up, I would use this site to attack the winners. FOREIGNERS WANT YOU TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA (and, uh, Ron Paul?). Hillary 2008.
posted by grobstein at 9:35 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by grobstein at 9:35 PM on November 18, 2007
Wait, wait.
Communist nations prefer Dennis Kucinich! I GET IT NOW!
posted by InnocentBystander at 9:36 PM on November 18, 2007
Communist nations prefer Dennis Kucinich! I GET IT NOW!
posted by InnocentBystander at 9:36 PM on November 18, 2007
Ranchocalamari . . . psychiatrists call that "projection."
posted by augustweed at 9:37 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by augustweed at 9:37 PM on November 18, 2007
No Al Gore?
Weak Sauce.
(Still has Al Gore as my pick on Facebook)
posted by delmoi at 9:38 PM on November 18, 2007
Weak Sauce.
(Still has Al Gore as my pick on Facebook)
posted by delmoi at 9:38 PM on November 18, 2007
Thank you for your vote AGAIN (All votes are only counted once).
We'll add it to what everyone else is voting in your Country.
posted by Brian B. at 9:39 PM on November 18, 2007
We'll add it to what everyone else is voting in your Country.
posted by Brian B. at 9:39 PM on November 18, 2007
IRAQ Votes for:
6 votes for Ron Paul
2 votes for Mitt Romney
2 votes for Rudy Giuliani
2 votes for Barack Obama
1 vote for Bill Richardson
1 vote for Joe Biden
1 vote for Duncan Hunter
1 vote for Hillary Clinton
Iraqis voting for Guiliani? Are they feeling suicidal? (Duncan Hunter!?)
posted by delmoi at 9:40 PM on November 18, 2007
6 votes for Ron Paul
2 votes for Mitt Romney
2 votes for Rudy Giuliani
2 votes for Barack Obama
1 vote for Bill Richardson
1 vote for Joe Biden
1 vote for Duncan Hunter
1 vote for Hillary Clinton
Iraqis voting for Guiliani? Are they feeling suicidal? (Duncan Hunter!?)
posted by delmoi at 9:40 PM on November 18, 2007
Wait wait wait.
Ron Paul is placing far ahead? In an Internet poll?!
posted by shakespeherian at 9:41 PM on November 18, 2007 [16 favorites]
Ron Paul is placing far ahead? In an Internet poll?!
posted by shakespeherian at 9:41 PM on November 18, 2007 [16 favorites]
This would be a hell of a lot more interesting if they used geographic IP lookup, rather then self-reporting to determine country.
posted by delmoi at 9:42 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by delmoi at 9:42 PM on November 18, 2007
Jesus.
Getting a bit bored of every third post being about the damn americans and their silly meaningless elections. Everyone with a brain knows that the president doesn't actually run a damn thing and is just a nice easy PR exercise to chop off or keep going with depending on public opinion.
This is supposed to be 'best of the web', not 'what's happening today in american politics'.
posted by Brockles at 9:42 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]
Getting a bit bored of every third post being about the damn americans and their silly meaningless elections. Everyone with a brain knows that the president doesn't actually run a damn thing and is just a nice easy PR exercise to chop off or keep going with depending on public opinion.
This is supposed to be 'best of the web', not 'what's happening today in american politics'.
posted by Brockles at 9:42 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]
Where do I add my name to the list of candidates?
posted by stavrogin at 9:45 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by stavrogin at 9:45 PM on November 18, 2007
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA Votes for:
2 votes for Mike Gravel
1 vote for Ron Paul
1 vote for Fred Thompson
God this site is funny.
posted by delmoi at 9:46 PM on November 18, 2007
2 votes for Mike Gravel
1 vote for Ron Paul
1 vote for Fred Thompson
God this site is funny.
posted by delmoi at 9:46 PM on November 18, 2007
Ranchocalamari . . . psychiatrists call that "projection."
I think you meant FOX. They're the ones who project "winners" through rigged data.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:47 PM on November 18, 2007
I think you meant FOX. They're the ones who project "winners" through rigged data.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:47 PM on November 18, 2007
Assuming the world has a computer, and time to vote a couple times.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:48 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:48 PM on November 18, 2007
This site is ridiculous. And the Ron Paul people really need to get some other hobbies.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:50 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:50 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]
Who would the World Elect?
Uh, Bob Rae?
posted by KokuRyu at 9:51 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
Uh, Bob Rae?
posted by KokuRyu at 9:51 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
(Cool idea, though. Terrible execution.)
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:51 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:51 PM on November 18, 2007
Everyone with a brain knows that the president doesn't actually run a damn thing
When you figure out which other country you are getting confused with America, drop another line in here and let us know. In the meantime, you might want to check this out.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:53 PM on November 18, 2007
When you figure out which other country you are getting confused with America, drop another line in here and let us know. In the meantime, you might want to check this out.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:53 PM on November 18, 2007
. . . psychiatrists call that "projection."
As long as we're on the subject, do psychiatrists have a term for extreme credulity regarding data which tends to confirm one's hopes?
I switched majors after freshmen year, so I don't know. Maybe 'Rovianism'?
posted by bluejayk at 10:01 PM on November 18, 2007
As long as we're on the subject, do psychiatrists have a term for extreme credulity regarding data which tends to confirm one's hopes?
I switched majors after freshmen year, so I don't know. Maybe 'Rovianism'?
posted by bluejayk at 10:01 PM on November 18, 2007
Man, my finger is aching, I've been sitting here for the last hour clicking Ron Paul. It says 542, I'm sure I've clicked more than that.
posted by mattoxic at 10:01 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by mattoxic at 10:01 PM on November 18, 2007
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!
posted by Krrrlson at 10:02 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by Krrrlson at 10:02 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
Apparently "vote early, vote often" is the new Libertarian slogan.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:08 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:08 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
This poll is fatally flawed due to the exclusion of Gene Ray as a candidate. The world's voters are educated stupid.
posted by the_bone at 10:19 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by the_bone at 10:19 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
When you figure out which other country you are getting confused with America, drop another line in here and let us know. In the meantime, you might want to check this out
And you believe that? That a guy that can hardly tie his own shoelaces has been running, with ultimate power, a massive, global economy for the last 8 years and the country hasn't totally collapsed?
He's a puppet. They all are. 'Government' runs the country - and most of the ones that don't change come election time have the most power. How else do you think that switches in government go so smoothly? The people running it for the last term left, and a whole stack of new guys came in and there wasn't even a blip?
It's a bit convenient, isn't it? Stick a guy that most of the world hates at the front and claim he is in charge of everything and has absolute power. Then do lots of massively unpopular global things (quick! Before his term is up!) that benefit the country as a whole then kick him out and seemingly wipe the slate clean...
"What? Us, the US did those things? No, no, no. That was Bush, and he's gone now. Yeah, we got rid of him cos he did bad things, Yes, we're all different now, and not interested in invading for mineral rights. No, of course not"
What's the bet the next elected figurehead of the US is someone that will appeal massively more to the areas of the world america has alienated under the last one? Best repair those bridges and blame the last guy, I reckon.
Great system. It's worked for years.
posted by Brockles at 10:25 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
And you believe that? That a guy that can hardly tie his own shoelaces has been running, with ultimate power, a massive, global economy for the last 8 years and the country hasn't totally collapsed?
He's a puppet. They all are. 'Government' runs the country - and most of the ones that don't change come election time have the most power. How else do you think that switches in government go so smoothly? The people running it for the last term left, and a whole stack of new guys came in and there wasn't even a blip?
It's a bit convenient, isn't it? Stick a guy that most of the world hates at the front and claim he is in charge of everything and has absolute power. Then do lots of massively unpopular global things (quick! Before his term is up!) that benefit the country as a whole then kick him out and seemingly wipe the slate clean...
"What? Us, the US did those things? No, no, no. That was Bush, and he's gone now. Yeah, we got rid of him cos he did bad things, Yes, we're all different now, and not interested in invading for mineral rights. No, of course not"
What's the bet the next elected figurehead of the US is someone that will appeal massively more to the areas of the world america has alienated under the last one? Best repair those bridges and blame the last guy, I reckon.
Great system. It's worked for years.
posted by Brockles at 10:25 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
Then do lots of massively unpopular global things (quick! Before his term is up!) that benefit the country as a whole then kick him out and seemingly wipe the slate clean...
Hmmm...but wouldn't your theory depend on the unpopular global things benefiting the country as a whole? Are we going to be seeing any of that, or are "they" saving all the benefits until the last minute?
posted by Sangermaine at 10:35 PM on November 18, 2007
Hmmm...but wouldn't your theory depend on the unpopular global things benefiting the country as a whole? Are we going to be seeing any of that, or are "they" saving all the benefits until the last minute?
posted by Sangermaine at 10:35 PM on November 18, 2007
Ron Paul is already President of the Internet.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:41 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:41 PM on November 18, 2007
Technically, Brockles, the US president does not run the county. We have a full three branches of government, with the power divided equally between them. The president doesn't even get to make laws! We have a cute group of folks called 'Congress' for that.
You can read all about it in a paper I like to call the US Constitution.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:46 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
You can read all about it in a paper I like to call the US Constitution.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:46 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Err... country. He doesn't run the county, either, but that's not important.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:46 PM on November 18, 2007
posted by shakespeherian at 10:46 PM on November 18, 2007
If you take Ron Paul out of the equation (the same way the US electoral system does, hyuck hyuck), the Democrats are cheesing1 the Republicans.
1. Like creaming, but it goes on longer.2
2. Terry Pratchett owns large portions of my soul.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:49 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
1. Like creaming, but it goes on longer.2
2. Terry Pratchett owns large portions of my soul.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:49 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
MADAGASCAR Votes for:
1 vote for Dennis Kucinich
Well, he's got that Lemur vote wrapped up...
posted by darkstar at 11:24 PM on November 18, 2007
1 vote for Dennis Kucinich
Well, he's got that Lemur vote wrapped up...
posted by darkstar at 11:24 PM on November 18, 2007
"... Great system. It's worked for years."
posted by Brockles at 1:25 AM on November 19
Only because the guy that is one heartbeat away from the Presidency is Dick "Ready, Fire, Aim!" Cheney.
posted by paulsc at 11:35 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Brockles at 1:25 AM on November 19
Only because the guy that is one heartbeat away from the Presidency is Dick "Ready, Fire, Aim!" Cheney.
posted by paulsc at 11:35 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yet more evidence to support my theory that the unseen mass of Ron Paul supporters is actually a hacker in a basement somewhere running a botnet.
(Hey, as long as they can have their conspiracy theories, I can have mine. And at least mine's plausible.)
posted by spiderwire at 12:08 AM on November 19, 2007
(Hey, as long as they can have their conspiracy theories, I can have mine. And at least mine's plausible.)
posted by spiderwire at 12:08 AM on November 19, 2007
We're doing this again? Benrik did globalvote in 2004, I could have sworn there was a thread about it here but I can't find it.
posted by dabitch at 12:47 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by dabitch at 12:47 AM on November 19, 2007
Err... country. He doesn't run the county, either, but that's not important.
Your Freudian slip reminded me of Patton Oswald's Dukes of Hazzard sketch, but that's for another thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:56 AM on November 19, 2007
Your Freudian slip reminded me of Patton Oswald's Dukes of Hazzard sketch, but that's for another thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:56 AM on November 19, 2007
If that site was realistic about the world's view on this, the name of the candidates would change, but the picture would stay the same.
posted by micayetoca at 2:11 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by micayetoca at 2:11 AM on November 19, 2007
I'm sure some Ron Paul blog picked this up, but their stupid site creates a snowball effect since you vote for whoever you click upon.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:23 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by jeffburdges at 2:23 AM on November 19, 2007
According to my friend in Austria, everyone there is rooting for Hillary. Apparently they even celebrated her birthday. I was like, "Uhhh... when's her birthday?" And she actually knew.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:28 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by miss lynnster at 2:28 AM on November 19, 2007
You know who else the Austrians liked...?
posted by The Ultimate Olympian at 2:45 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by The Ultimate Olympian at 2:45 AM on November 19, 2007
You know who else the Austrians liked...?
I dunno, was it Ann Schluss?
posted by Wolof at 3:03 AM on November 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
I dunno, was it Ann Schluss?
posted by Wolof at 3:03 AM on November 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
Well, yes. Actually, I do. I know they like John Wayne & Tina Turner a lot. And Jon Bon Jovi. And David Hasselhoff. And they didn't used to like Arnold Schwartzeneggar but now they kind of get a kick out of him being governor.
posted by miss lynnster at 3:20 AM on November 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by miss lynnster at 3:20 AM on November 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
Don't know why people are complaining it doesn't do a geo-ip lookup, because it picked Australia for me without me having to tell it.
I voted for Gravel.
Go Gravel!
posted by Jimbob at 3:52 AM on November 19, 2007
I voted for Gravel.
Go Gravel!
posted by Jimbob at 3:52 AM on November 19, 2007
This is terrible because you can pick any country.
This is terrible because it doesn't do any kind of IP check.
Not to mention the % of the world that doesn't have internet access.
posted by allkindsoftime at 4:04 AM on November 19, 2007
This is terrible because it doesn't do any kind of IP check.
Not to mention the % of the world that doesn't have internet access.
posted by allkindsoftime at 4:04 AM on November 19, 2007
Brockles: He's a puppet. They all are. 'Government' runs the country....
Simplistic nonsense. Leadership is complex. Sometimes you can manage from below. But in any reasonably high-stakes situation, that's hardly ever a "puppetmaster" scenario. All you need to do is look around you in your daily life.
posted by lodurr at 5:12 AM on November 19, 2007
Simplistic nonsense. Leadership is complex. Sometimes you can manage from below. But in any reasonably high-stakes situation, that's hardly ever a "puppetmaster" scenario. All you need to do is look around you in your daily life.
posted by lodurr at 5:12 AM on November 19, 2007
It's well-known that Afghanistanis are diehard Ron Paul supporters. You didn't know?
Yeah, what's up with that? Don't those opium farmers realize that legalization is more likely to hurt their bottom line rather than help it? It's not like oil where there's a finite supply of the stuff.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:20 AM on November 19, 2007
Yeah, what's up with that? Don't those opium farmers realize that legalization is more likely to hurt their bottom line rather than help it? It's not like oil where there's a finite supply of the stuff.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:20 AM on November 19, 2007
It absolutely does do IP lookup. Then ignores it if you choose another country. The point is most likely so you can allow people to vote as their home country while being in another, but of course it opens the door to gaming the results. Though I suppose it takes the whole thing a bit too seriously to worry much about someone mobilising a botnet to skew the results for Estonia.
The "snowball effect" that jeffburdges notes is an unforgivable interaction design gaffe. They should zero it out and start from scratch after replacing that insanely stupid "click the picture to vote" mode with radio buttons for each candidate and a submit button.
posted by lodurr at 5:20 AM on November 19, 2007
The "snowball effect" that jeffburdges notes is an unforgivable interaction design gaffe. They should zero it out and start from scratch after replacing that insanely stupid "click the picture to vote" mode with radio buttons for each candidate and a submit button.
posted by lodurr at 5:20 AM on November 19, 2007
You know who else the Austrians liked...?
Ursula Plassnik?
posted by Hot Like Your 12V Wire at 5:32 AM on November 19, 2007
Ursula Plassnik?
posted by Hot Like Your 12V Wire at 5:32 AM on November 19, 2007
Simplistic nonsense. Leadership is complex. Sometimes you can manage from below.
Of course you can. The amount that you manage from below dictates how much ultimate power the man perceived as 'being at the top' has, though doesn't it? Fundamentally so.
No one person has enough hours in the day to even understand all the factors affecting all the decisions that the US government makes on a daily basis. It's impossible. So naturally a condensed version is presented for any decisions to be taken (assuming he hasn't delegated then out anyway). And the people that have already made the decision for him only need to present things in a way that will get the answer they want.
Remember WMD? Bush was convinced they were there. Why? Do you think the people who advised him were convinced they were there? Or just told him that to get the war they were after.
No, the president doesn't run the country. He also doesn't run the foreign policy. Start to dig deeper, and (ignoring the constitution and the 'word of the law' as I suspect it is largely being in US government) you say "Well, he hasn't the time to be really in charge of that.... or that. Or that". There comes a point when you think "I wonder if he is being kept so busy bouncing between public engagements and with us throwing big issues at him that he doesn't actually control anything at all".
The american people as a whole believes deeply in the constitution - that the President is in charge and personally responsible for everything done in america's name. This doesn't by any means necessarily have to represent the truth. That also doesn't mean that US government is a joke at all. I'm not attacking that, I'm attacking the concept that the face at the top actually matters at all - it's simply not possible for someone to have the power that the president is deemed to have other than purely nominally. There isn't even enough hours in the day to understand that which you are supposed to be deciding. And, as I say, the same people that can present skewed information to the nominal decision makers will be present, correct, and able to continue their long term plan when the faces in the White House change. The very act of changing these faces allows the next phase or shift of the long term plan and a convenient reason to throw out old plans that don't work and have one person blamed and the faith in the government itself remain unshaken. A country like the US can't work on a 4, 8 or 12 year plan. No country can. It has to work over a longer period to look after itself and its interests. You can't have someone coming in after 4 years and screwing up those long term plans, can you?
So how much can the people who govern actually safeguard that? It's too 'neat'. It works too well, this changing faces thing. Has anyone ever noticed that it is the weaker leaders that are in 'power' when the nasty shit is being done? Maybe because a proper leader would be aware and strong enough to defy or control the advisors beneath him. Just a thought.
but wouldn't your theory depend on the unpopular global things benefiting the country
Er. Yeah. I didn't say you lot got it right :) Still. At least no-one nasty is in charge of oil production. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with it, as mentioned a bazillion times before.
posted by Brockles at 5:42 AM on November 19, 2007
Of course you can. The amount that you manage from below dictates how much ultimate power the man perceived as 'being at the top' has, though doesn't it? Fundamentally so.
No one person has enough hours in the day to even understand all the factors affecting all the decisions that the US government makes on a daily basis. It's impossible. So naturally a condensed version is presented for any decisions to be taken (assuming he hasn't delegated then out anyway). And the people that have already made the decision for him only need to present things in a way that will get the answer they want.
Remember WMD? Bush was convinced they were there. Why? Do you think the people who advised him were convinced they were there? Or just told him that to get the war they were after.
No, the president doesn't run the country. He also doesn't run the foreign policy. Start to dig deeper, and (ignoring the constitution and the 'word of the law' as I suspect it is largely being in US government) you say "Well, he hasn't the time to be really in charge of that.... or that. Or that". There comes a point when you think "I wonder if he is being kept so busy bouncing between public engagements and with us throwing big issues at him that he doesn't actually control anything at all".
The american people as a whole believes deeply in the constitution - that the President is in charge and personally responsible for everything done in america's name. This doesn't by any means necessarily have to represent the truth. That also doesn't mean that US government is a joke at all. I'm not attacking that, I'm attacking the concept that the face at the top actually matters at all - it's simply not possible for someone to have the power that the president is deemed to have other than purely nominally. There isn't even enough hours in the day to understand that which you are supposed to be deciding. And, as I say, the same people that can present skewed information to the nominal decision makers will be present, correct, and able to continue their long term plan when the faces in the White House change. The very act of changing these faces allows the next phase or shift of the long term plan and a convenient reason to throw out old plans that don't work and have one person blamed and the faith in the government itself remain unshaken. A country like the US can't work on a 4, 8 or 12 year plan. No country can. It has to work over a longer period to look after itself and its interests. You can't have someone coming in after 4 years and screwing up those long term plans, can you?
So how much can the people who govern actually safeguard that? It's too 'neat'. It works too well, this changing faces thing. Has anyone ever noticed that it is the weaker leaders that are in 'power' when the nasty shit is being done? Maybe because a proper leader would be aware and strong enough to defy or control the advisors beneath him. Just a thought.
but wouldn't your theory depend on the unpopular global things benefiting the country
Er. Yeah. I didn't say you lot got it right :) Still. At least no-one nasty is in charge of oil production. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with it, as mentioned a bazillion times before.
posted by Brockles at 5:42 AM on November 19, 2007
So, Brockles, it seems to me that you're saying no one person runs the country.
Which is utterly non-controversial.
Are you also arguing that if the President gets up one day and decides something ought to be done a certain way, he has no power to execute on that?
At least you're not confusing "this president" with the office of the President.
The President clearly has a leadership role. He "sets the tone" by making executive decisions. Sometimes those decisions are managed from below (as when Dick Cheney manages the fight against that pernicious system of checks and balances we used to be so proud of here in the US), but I still say it's naively cynical to suppose that the President -- and I would argue, even this presiden -- doesn't lead.
posted by lodurr at 5:57 AM on November 19, 2007
Which is utterly non-controversial.
Are you also arguing that if the President gets up one day and decides something ought to be done a certain way, he has no power to execute on that?
At least you're not confusing "this president" with the office of the President.
The President clearly has a leadership role. He "sets the tone" by making executive decisions. Sometimes those decisions are managed from below (as when Dick Cheney manages the fight against that pernicious system of checks and balances we used to be so proud of here in the US), but I still say it's naively cynical to suppose that the President -- and I would argue, even this presiden -- doesn't lead.
posted by lodurr at 5:57 AM on November 19, 2007
To those of you who feel the president has no control over the direction our country goes in, I'd like to point you in the direction of exhibit A) Iraq and exhibit B) Iran.
posted by crewshell at 5:58 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by crewshell at 5:58 AM on November 19, 2007
... as for your point about weaker leaders -- could you give some examples?
The worst stuff I can think of happened under very strong leaders: Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Pinochet, that Austrian guy we try not to mention by name, that Iraqi guy who we were assured was as bad as him, and so on. The phrase "Strongman" springs to mind.
posted by lodurr at 6:01 AM on November 19, 2007
The worst stuff I can think of happened under very strong leaders: Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Pinochet, that Austrian guy we try not to mention by name, that Iraqi guy who we were assured was as bad as him, and so on. The phrase "Strongman" springs to mind.
posted by lodurr at 6:01 AM on November 19, 2007
Well, crewshell, I think the argument is that the President, per se, is just a figurehead on those issues. It's kind of a (naive) epiphenomenalist view on political leadership, in my view: The leader is an expression of what's being led.
posted by lodurr at 6:03 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by lodurr at 6:03 AM on November 19, 2007
Wow Brockles. Considering how worked up you are over an incredibly lame internet poll, you must be pure comedy gold at dinner parties.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:13 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:13 AM on November 19, 2007
A leader is many cases should be an expression of whats being led but we forget the influence a leader can have to shape direction.
Whats spoken about, what gets attention and what doesn't... much like the recent AP news release about about Iran possibly maybe not being the most evil empire since Iraq... Of course this gets no attention by the MAJOR media... or the white house.
Sigh.
posted by crewshell at 6:19 AM on November 19, 2007
Whats spoken about, what gets attention and what doesn't... much like the recent AP news release about about Iran possibly maybe not being the most evil empire since Iraq... Of course this gets no attention by the MAJOR media... or the white house.
Sigh.
posted by crewshell at 6:19 AM on November 19, 2007
I'm surprised. I figured that if the election of the US president were up to Internet voters from all over the world, it would be a dead heat between Michael Jordan and Mickey Mouse.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:20 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:20 AM on November 19, 2007
This is supposed to be 'best of the web', not 'what's happening today in american politics'.
we still letting you canuck bastards comment on our website? go have a beer, eh.
posted by quonsar at 7:14 AM on November 19, 2007
we still letting you canuck bastards comment on our website? go have a beer, eh.
posted by quonsar at 7:14 AM on November 19, 2007
Yet more evidence to support my theory that the unseen mass of Ron Paul supporters is actually a hacker in a basement somewhere running a botnet.
I got stuck behind a Ron Paul supporter in the drive thru last night, so they really do exist in the wild. He paid with gold ingots.
posted by jal0021 at 7:21 AM on November 19, 2007 [4 favorites]
I got stuck behind a Ron Paul supporter in the drive thru last night, so they really do exist in the wild. He paid with gold ingots.
posted by jal0021 at 7:21 AM on November 19, 2007 [4 favorites]
Must be that bot that donated 4.38 million in one day too... its amazing! I wonder if I could bot my bank account too?
posted by crewshell at 7:27 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by crewshell at 7:27 AM on November 19, 2007
Must be that bot that donated 4.38 million in one day too... its amazing! I wonder if I could bot my bank account too?
Come talk to me when your candidate polls outside the Margin of Error in a poll that can't be cheesed.
Really, though, this kind of raises a question: do fans of Ron Paul become fans because they're dumb, or does Ron Paul fandom make them dumb?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:39 AM on November 19, 2007
Come talk to me when your candidate polls outside the Margin of Error in a poll that can't be cheesed.
Really, though, this kind of raises a question: do fans of Ron Paul become fans because they're dumb, or does Ron Paul fandom make them dumb?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:39 AM on November 19, 2007
Maybe it has more to do with idealism than stupidity.
As I'll probably get tired of saying before the cycle is over: Not a Ron Paul supporter, and I think modern American Libertarianism is a brain-dead philosophy, but it's hard to avoid the fact that on most objective measures Libertarians are usually pretty smart people.
posted by lodurr at 8:12 AM on November 19, 2007
As I'll probably get tired of saying before the cycle is over: Not a Ron Paul supporter, and I think modern American Libertarianism is a brain-dead philosophy, but it's hard to avoid the fact that on most objective measures Libertarians are usually pretty smart people.
posted by lodurr at 8:12 AM on November 19, 2007
Libertarians are unelectable becuase they are principled.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:29 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:29 AM on November 19, 2007
Finally an internet poll of what people on Digg think.
posted by ALongDecember at 8:33 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by ALongDecember at 8:33 AM on November 19, 2007
we still letting you canuck bastards comment on our website? go have a beer, eh
That would have been funnier if you'd said "Our internet". :)
Oh, and I'm not Canadian. Nor am I worked up; I didn't even look at the poll, I'm just bored to tears of the subject and the hype over something that isn't as important as it is made out to be. I think there is very little evidence to support the theory that the man at the top has any significant control or say in what the country as a whole does. And I think your current one is being left out to dry by the people who really have the power - the same people that will still be there after the elections. His control and power is nominal and only as much as they let him have - they control him through information and spin. Of course, if he decided to start pressing big red buttons, I bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that he'd have a nasty fall down the stairs somewhere. Or if he just threatened it, there'd be in intern found on her knees somewhere to keep him busy...
I'd hate to say "I told you so" after the elections when some other poor bugger has the fancy house and helicopters next year and is still being harangued by the rest of the world for still trying to trample on the rest of the world with people saying "I thought this was going to change?". But while people still believe that they need to just vote someone else into that house for everything to change and be alright, and the illusion of populace control remains, what you 'merkins wish for your country won't necessarily be reflected in what the government does. They'll just have had a nice distracting election to think up some new answers and justifications.
To clarify the 'weaker leaders': I was referring to the weaker leaders of the US. Bush in particular seems to very, very heavily rely on his backroom boys. Who are, from where I am sitting, getting all the bad shit done while he is there so that he can go down in history as the scapegoat 'bad man'.
posted by Brockles at 8:48 AM on November 19, 2007
That would have been funnier if you'd said "Our internet". :)
Oh, and I'm not Canadian. Nor am I worked up; I didn't even look at the poll, I'm just bored to tears of the subject and the hype over something that isn't as important as it is made out to be. I think there is very little evidence to support the theory that the man at the top has any significant control or say in what the country as a whole does. And I think your current one is being left out to dry by the people who really have the power - the same people that will still be there after the elections. His control and power is nominal and only as much as they let him have - they control him through information and spin. Of course, if he decided to start pressing big red buttons, I bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that he'd have a nasty fall down the stairs somewhere. Or if he just threatened it, there'd be in intern found on her knees somewhere to keep him busy...
I'd hate to say "I told you so" after the elections when some other poor bugger has the fancy house and helicopters next year and is still being harangued by the rest of the world for still trying to trample on the rest of the world with people saying "I thought this was going to change?". But while people still believe that they need to just vote someone else into that house for everything to change and be alright, and the illusion of populace control remains, what you 'merkins wish for your country won't necessarily be reflected in what the government does. They'll just have had a nice distracting election to think up some new answers and justifications.
To clarify the 'weaker leaders': I was referring to the weaker leaders of the US. Bush in particular seems to very, very heavily rely on his backroom boys. Who are, from where I am sitting, getting all the bad shit done while he is there so that he can go down in history as the scapegoat 'bad man'.
posted by Brockles at 8:48 AM on November 19, 2007
Whether you believe that theory as a possibility (or even whether I do) is irrelevant. I think it is an interesting point, and does explain a few things if you can reassess past events with that concept in mind.
I'm pretty sure all is not as it seems, and the US is due a seriously major scandal (not one involving cigars or dresses - I mean a real one) and I'm pretty much hoping it doesn't damage the country too much when it happens. After all, I live next door, and the fallout will reach me...
posted by Brockles at 8:50 AM on November 19, 2007
I'm pretty sure all is not as it seems, and the US is due a seriously major scandal (not one involving cigars or dresses - I mean a real one) and I'm pretty much hoping it doesn't damage the country too much when it happens. After all, I live next door, and the fallout will reach me...
posted by Brockles at 8:50 AM on November 19, 2007
Yet more evidence to support my theory that the unseen mass of Ron Paul supporters is actually a hacker in a basement somewhere running a botnet.
The only Ron Paul supporter I know is a friend's mother. She keeps a piece of cardboard taped over her webcam when she's not using it. So the government can't watch her.
God's honest truth.
posted by bonecrusher at 9:05 AM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
The only Ron Paul supporter I know is a friend's mother. She keeps a piece of cardboard taped over her webcam when she's not using it. So the government can't watch her.
God's honest truth.
posted by bonecrusher at 9:05 AM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
Bush in particular seems to very, very heavily rely on his backroom boys.
To suggest that Bush's "backroom boys" will be the same as, say, Obama's backroom boys, strikes me as absurd.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:09 AM on November 19, 2007
To suggest that Bush's "backroom boys" will be the same as, say, Obama's backroom boys, strikes me as absurd.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:09 AM on November 19, 2007
Well, that all depends on how far back you go, doesn't it?
And this goes back to my previous point that if an entire busload of rookies were shipped in after each election, I'm pretty sure you'd see some serious hiccups after each change in 'leadership'...
posted by Brockles at 9:14 AM on November 19, 2007
And this goes back to my previous point that if an entire busload of rookies were shipped in after each election, I'm pretty sure you'd see some serious hiccups after each change in 'leadership'...
posted by Brockles at 9:14 AM on November 19, 2007
I enjoyed Backroom Boys 1 and 2, but even Wolfe won't have Backroom Boys 3: Hard Right until next February; does anyone know where I can pick up this thrilling documentary?
posted by breezeway at 9:29 AM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by breezeway at 9:29 AM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
This is such bullshit. The world would elect Bono. You know it's true.
posted by shmegegge at 9:39 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 9:39 AM on November 19, 2007
The only Ron Paul supporter I know is a friend's mother. She keeps a piece of cardboard taped over her webcam when she's not using it. So the government can't watch her.
The joke's on her, because the ZOG puts x-ray emitters in every webcam so that they can see through cardboard, and also through walls into the next room.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:40 AM on November 19, 2007
The joke's on her, because the ZOG puts x-ray emitters in every webcam so that they can see through cardboard, and also through walls into the next room.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:40 AM on November 19, 2007
brockles: I think there is very little evidence to support the theory that the man at the top has any significant control or say in what the country as a whole does.
This sentiment is so heavily qualified as to be more or less completely unfalsifiable.
posted by lodurr at 9:52 AM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
This sentiment is so heavily qualified as to be more or less completely unfalsifiable.
posted by lodurr at 9:52 AM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
ZenMasterThis: Libertarians are unelectable becuase they are principled.
But "Oddly, Hypocrisy Rooted in High Morals".
So again, it's not a simple relationship.
posted by lodurr at 9:58 AM on November 19, 2007
But "Oddly, Hypocrisy Rooted in High Morals".
So again, it's not a simple relationship.
posted by lodurr at 9:58 AM on November 19, 2007
lodurr: Yeah, good point.
I think that he is only allowed to see that which is presented to him as fact.
or: I think the information he receives is sufficiently controlled that he can't necessarily take responsibility for his actions, as his basis for such is false information (deliberately) and designed to provoke a pre-planned response.
or: Through information mangling, I think he is a puppet that is diverting attention away from the true power or purpose. And is a nice little 'throw away' blame for Bad Things (tm) as will be the next one.
I don't know how strongly I believe this, but it is the most likely scenario for me. I just don't get how anyone could be that dumb, have access to that much power and not have blown themselves up with a pencil sharpener by now. Which raises the question that someone must be helping him. And exactly how much is that person or persons 'helping him' and exactly where does that line blur into 'controlling'.
posted by Brockles at 9:59 AM on November 19, 2007
I think that he is only allowed to see that which is presented to him as fact.
or: I think the information he receives is sufficiently controlled that he can't necessarily take responsibility for his actions, as his basis for such is false information (deliberately) and designed to provoke a pre-planned response.
or: Through information mangling, I think he is a puppet that is diverting attention away from the true power or purpose. And is a nice little 'throw away' blame for Bad Things (tm) as will be the next one.
I don't know how strongly I believe this, but it is the most likely scenario for me. I just don't get how anyone could be that dumb, have access to that much power and not have blown themselves up with a pencil sharpener by now. Which raises the question that someone must be helping him. And exactly how much is that person or persons 'helping him' and exactly where does that line blur into 'controlling'.
posted by Brockles at 9:59 AM on November 19, 2007
I have real doubts that people outside of the US know who the fuck Ron Paul is. Obama on theothe hand is someone the whole world is into.
posted by Artw at 10:12 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by Artw at 10:12 AM on November 19, 2007
(looks at site)
Jesus, Ron Paul supporters really are trained monkeys who will click on any old shit that says "RON PAUL" on it multiple times, arn't they?
posted by Artw at 10:14 AM on November 19, 2007
Jesus, Ron Paul supporters really are trained monkeys who will click on any old shit that says "RON PAUL" on it multiple times, arn't they?
posted by Artw at 10:14 AM on November 19, 2007
Libertarians are unelectable becuase they are principled.
And that principle is "I'd vote for Hitler if he cut my taxes."
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:16 AM on November 19, 2007 [4 favorites]
And that principle is "I'd vote for Hitler if he cut my taxes."
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:16 AM on November 19, 2007 [4 favorites]
Pope Guilty: Come on. You're leaving most of the usual hackneyed best Libertarian dismissals on the table. Nothing about the right to bear bazookas? The immorality of publicly-funded education? Not bringing up "The Constitution of No Authority"?
posted by lodurr at 10:39 AM on November 19, 2007
posted by lodurr at 10:39 AM on November 19, 2007
... if an entire busload of rookies were shipped in after each election, I'm pretty sure you'd see some serious hiccups after each change in 'leadership'...
Well, it's not a matter of "rookies," but the makeup of the executive branch changes radically every time a president from one party is followed by another from a different party (and sometimes even by another from the same party.) Presidents draw upon the party ranks for these executive positions. If a president made no actual decisions at all, other than choosing how to fill political positions in the executive branch, that would alone cause a significant shift in how the government operates. The bureaucracy below these political positions doesn't change overnight, but there are significant policy changes in many cases that are driven by these political appointees.
My partner, who works as a policy author for EEOC, has all sorts of stories on this topic. He's not a political appointee, but has to deal with them.
I just don't get how anyone could be that dumb, have access to that much power and not have blown themselves up with a pencil sharpener by now.
I just don't get how everyone thinks that Bush is literally that dumb. He's not. You don't get to be president without being pretty clever, at the very least. He's no intellectual giant, that's for sure, but he's not the village idiot either.
He is, of course, dumb enough to bear responsibility for the worst presidency in modern memory, which has failed at everything it's attempted. That doesn't make your "man behind the curtain" theory look so good, does it?
posted by me & my monkey at 10:43 AM on November 19, 2007
Well, it's not a matter of "rookies," but the makeup of the executive branch changes radically every time a president from one party is followed by another from a different party (and sometimes even by another from the same party.) Presidents draw upon the party ranks for these executive positions. If a president made no actual decisions at all, other than choosing how to fill political positions in the executive branch, that would alone cause a significant shift in how the government operates. The bureaucracy below these political positions doesn't change overnight, but there are significant policy changes in many cases that are driven by these political appointees.
My partner, who works as a policy author for EEOC, has all sorts of stories on this topic. He's not a political appointee, but has to deal with them.
I just don't get how anyone could be that dumb, have access to that much power and not have blown themselves up with a pencil sharpener by now.
I just don't get how everyone thinks that Bush is literally that dumb. He's not. You don't get to be president without being pretty clever, at the very least. He's no intellectual giant, that's for sure, but he's not the village idiot either.
He is, of course, dumb enough to bear responsibility for the worst presidency in modern memory, which has failed at everything it's attempted. That doesn't make your "man behind the curtain" theory look so good, does it?
posted by me & my monkey at 10:43 AM on November 19, 2007
Pope Guilty: Come on. You're leaving most of the usual hackneyed best Libertarian dismissals on the table. Nothing about the right to bear bazookas? The immorality of publicly-funded education? Not bringing up "The Constitution of No Authority"?
I usually go with the Libertarians' advocacy of child labour, personally, but the fact that they'll vote for anyone who promises a tax cut is something that most people who aren't Libertarians won't dispute.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:55 AM on November 19, 2007
I usually go with the Libertarians' advocacy of child labour, personally, but the fact that they'll vote for anyone who promises a tax cut is something that most people who aren't Libertarians won't dispute.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:55 AM on November 19, 2007
The fact that "the world" wants Ron Paul to win is clear evidence that Ron Paul's isolationism is well-founded. If they want him, we shouldn't have anything to do with them.
posted by adamrice at 11:00 AM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by adamrice at 11:00 AM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
The world seems to love Ron Paul. I've never even heard of him, I wonder if the world is confusing him with RuPaul.
posted by BostonJake at 12:03 PM on November 19, 2007
posted by BostonJake at 12:03 PM on November 19, 2007
Brockles: "Getting a bit bored of every third post being about the damn americans and their silly meaningless elections."
AMEN TO THAT!
...whut?
posted by ZachsMind at 12:08 PM on November 19, 2007
AMEN TO THAT!
...whut?
posted by ZachsMind at 12:08 PM on November 19, 2007
Nothing about the right to bear bazookas? The immorality of publicly-funded education? Not bringing up "The Constitution of No Authority"?
...and the ever-popular "teen-aged fans of the band 'Rush.'"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:52 PM on November 19, 2007
...and the ever-popular "teen-aged fans of the band 'Rush.'"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:52 PM on November 19, 2007
. . . psychiatrists call that "projection."
As long as we're on the subject, do psychiatrists have a term for extreme credulity regarding data which tends to confirm one's hopes?
BTW I put this post up because I thought it was interesting, not because it was calculating many Ron Paul votes. I am fully aware this is NOT accurate voting. Fucking Diebold can't even get it right (they could if they weren't corrupt) A LOT of Mefites assume everything I post has an agenda. This is not always true. .
posted by augustweed at 12:57 PM on November 19, 2007
As long as we're on the subject, do psychiatrists have a term for extreme credulity regarding data which tends to confirm one's hopes?
BTW I put this post up because I thought it was interesting, not because it was calculating many Ron Paul votes. I am fully aware this is NOT accurate voting. Fucking Diebold can't even get it right (they could if they weren't corrupt) A LOT of Mefites assume everything I post has an agenda. This is not always true. .
posted by augustweed at 12:57 PM on November 19, 2007
augustweed, the whole Ru Paul thing is a derail, sure. But it was a really crappy execution of the basic idea, too. That's made all the more annoying by the fact that they did some things right, like working out the geolocation connection and even getting the right flags to show up.
posted by lodurr at 1:00 PM on November 19, 2007
posted by lodurr at 1:00 PM on November 19, 2007
As long as we're on the subject, do psychiatrists have a term for extreme credulity regarding data which tends to confirm one's hopes?
The term is "confirmation bias".
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:17 PM on November 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
The term is "confirmation bias".
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:17 PM on November 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
"I have real doubts that people outside of the US know who the fuck Ron Paul is. Obama on theothe hand is someone the whole world is into."
I have real doubts that the whole world is into either of those gentlemen. If the world got to elect someone as president it would most likely:
* not be an American.
* not be someone most Americans have heard of.
* not be someone who takes the US Constitution remotely seriously.
* not be someone who would have America's interests at heart.
The question is absurd. It's like asking who the world would choose as Pope. The fact is it doesn't work that way. I mean, I adore John Lennon's "Imagine" as much as anyone, but the fact is a website's not gonna change how the president of the United States gets elected, so this what if has less legs than "What if Captain America were president?"
posted by ZachsMind at 1:41 PM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
I have real doubts that the whole world is into either of those gentlemen. If the world got to elect someone as president it would most likely:
* not be an American.
* not be someone most Americans have heard of.
* not be someone who takes the US Constitution remotely seriously.
* not be someone who would have America's interests at heart.
The question is absurd. It's like asking who the world would choose as Pope. The fact is it doesn't work that way. I mean, I adore John Lennon's "Imagine" as much as anyone, but the fact is a website's not gonna change how the president of the United States gets elected, so this what if has less legs than "What if Captain America were president?"
posted by ZachsMind at 1:41 PM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
The top vote in US for this poll is...
26642 votes for Ron Paul
Okay, the site is rigged.
I'm sure if Ayn Rand was running she would be at the top of this poll too.
posted by Rashomon at 3:48 PM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
26642 votes for Ron Paul
Okay, the site is rigged.
I'm sure if Ayn Rand was running she would be at the top of this poll too.
posted by Rashomon at 3:48 PM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
My favourite part is where anyone outside the US has ever even heard of Ron Paul.
He's a lot like that Jesus guy for me: he sounds sort of OK in principle -- at least before you look in any detail -- but his fans unfailingly bring out an overwhelming urge to smack them in the face with a shovel.
Yup. Ron Paul and Jesus.
And Apple.
posted by genghis at 5:10 PM on November 19, 2007
He's a lot like that Jesus guy for me: he sounds sort of OK in principle -- at least before you look in any detail -- but his fans unfailingly bring out an overwhelming urge to smack them in the face with a shovel.
Yup. Ron Paul and Jesus.
And Apple.
posted by genghis at 5:10 PM on November 19, 2007
Seeing photos of all of the runners together leaves me feeling a little ill. Well, maybe very ill.
Who is the lesser evil? Hillary or Fred?
posted by snsranch at 5:23 PM on November 19, 2007
Who is the lesser evil? Hillary or Fred?
posted by snsranch at 5:23 PM on November 19, 2007
Cuba, Pakistan and Iran loves Ron Paul as well. Wow.
I suspect Jose Padillia believes the president has some power.
Maybe it’s like one of those cars at amusement parks that are on rails, you can make sharp turns, control the speed, but you’re stuck on a rail so you can’t go off the path. Or perhaps if you hit the gas hard and wrench the wheel you can shove the rail off a bit so you change the direction of the country. The Padillia verdict set up precedents that will resonate. Threw a lot of the country, the past at least, how we think of executive power, off the rails.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:03 PM on November 19, 2007
I suspect Jose Padillia believes the president has some power.
Maybe it’s like one of those cars at amusement parks that are on rails, you can make sharp turns, control the speed, but you’re stuck on a rail so you can’t go off the path. Or perhaps if you hit the gas hard and wrench the wheel you can shove the rail off a bit so you change the direction of the country. The Padillia verdict set up precedents that will resonate. Threw a lot of the country, the past at least, how we think of executive power, off the rails.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:03 PM on November 19, 2007
In an actual world election, you can be pretty sure the plurality vote would go to Hu Jintao or his designated favorite. Sorry, Mr. Paul.
posted by eritain at 8:22 PM on November 19, 2007
posted by eritain at 8:22 PM on November 19, 2007
If the world got to elect someone as president it would most likely:
* not be an American.
...except for that pesky Constitutional requirement that American presidents actually *be* American. If we're talking about dumb hypotheticals, there's no reason to dump all the rules. It's about who the rest of the world would choose as the US president, not who the rest of the world would choose as the US overlord.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:23 AM on November 20, 2007
* not be an American.
...except for that pesky Constitutional requirement that American presidents actually *be* American. If we're talking about dumb hypotheticals, there's no reason to dump all the rules. It's about who the rest of the world would choose as the US president, not who the rest of the world would choose as the US overlord.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:23 AM on November 20, 2007
On the contrary: If we're talking about dumb hypotheticals, there's no real good reason to keep any of the rules.
posted by lodurr at 6:40 AM on November 20, 2007
posted by lodurr at 6:40 AM on November 20, 2007
That makes no sense, lodurr. If the question is "Who Would The World Elect for the President of the United States?", throwing out all the rules would give you answers like "v1agra", "marmalade", "The Collected Works of Stephen King", or "a34rnrw4f". There has to be certain assumptions in a hypothetical question.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:28 AM on November 20, 2007
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:28 AM on November 20, 2007
Those answers make about as much sense as "Ron Paul" or "Barack Obama" to a Bangladeshi.
posted by lodurr at 9:11 AM on November 20, 2007
posted by lodurr at 9:11 AM on November 20, 2007
That's pretty insulting, lodurr. We're not talking about walking up to a random Bangladeshi and asking who they'd vote for. If that were the case, I'd say the most popular answer would be "who the hell cares?". I think it's safe to say the poll presupposes at least a passing interest for and familiarity with the American election. I'm not American, yet I'm able to appreciate the differences between many of the US candidates. I also try to follow, at least at the highest levels, elections in a number of other countries, too.
Regardless, it's pretty obvious from the results so far that far more Americans are voting in the poll than non-Americans, so it's a useless argument to be having.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:46 AM on November 20, 2007
Regardless, it's pretty obvious from the results so far that far more Americans are voting in the poll than non-Americans, so it's a useless argument to be having.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:46 AM on November 20, 2007
That's pretty insulting, lodurr.
That's pretty overly-sensitive, GhostInTheMachine.
posted by lodurr at 9:47 AM on November 20, 2007
That's pretty overly-sensitive, GhostInTheMachine.
posted by lodurr at 9:47 AM on November 20, 2007
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a LESSER evil.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:44 PM on November 20, 2007
posted by ZachsMind at 12:44 PM on November 20, 2007
Overly sensitive how? Your comment suggested someone from [insert non-US nation here] couldn't possibly have any knowledge of American presidential candidates. Considering this is an internet poll, that person would have to have internet access, and therefore would have easy access to information on the American candidates. Participation in the poll is obviously voluntary, so we could expect that only people with an actual interest in the subject would answer. To suggest with all that in mind that someone from Bangladesh who participated in this poll (and was therefore connected to the internet, with access to candidate profiles, and interested in the subject) couldn't tell the difference between Barack Obama and marmalade is insulting. I don't see how you could suggest otherwise.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:49 PM on November 20, 2007
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:49 PM on November 20, 2007
Your comment suggested someone from [insert non-US nation here] couldn't possibly probably wouldn't have any knowledge of give a shit about American presidential candidates.
Fixed that for you.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions that you don't examine very closely. And you're taking all of this far, far too seriously. Lighten up, Francis.
posted by lodurr at 1:09 PM on November 20, 2007
Fixed that for you.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions that you don't examine very closely. And you're taking all of this far, far too seriously. Lighten up, Francis.
posted by lodurr at 1:09 PM on November 20, 2007
there is no such thing as a LESSER evil.
Only if you take "evil" to be an absolute. I stopped doing that when I was still a child.
posted by lodurr at 1:10 PM on November 20, 2007
Only if you take "evil" to be an absolute. I stopped doing that when I was still a child.
posted by lodurr at 1:10 PM on November 20, 2007
How dense can you possibly be, lodurr? Anybody who "probably wouldn't give a shit about" the candidates also probably wouldn't answer the damned poll, either.
You're making a lot of flippant, half-assed comments without actually considering what's being said. You call me psycho, I call you troll.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:49 AM on November 21, 2007
You're making a lot of flippant, half-assed comments without actually considering what's being said. You call me psycho, I call you troll.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:49 AM on November 21, 2007
You call me a troll? Maybe while you're doing that, you can point out when I called you "psycho." (Or are you trying to justify the label by inventing accusations?)
posted by lodurr at 8:58 AM on November 21, 2007
posted by lodurr at 8:58 AM on November 21, 2007
(Sheesh, lodurr... go watch "Stripes" again.)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:25 AM on November 21, 2007
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:25 AM on November 21, 2007
You mean that scene where Sgt. Hulka informs "psycho" Francis that he's not really all that scary by telling him "Lighten up, Francis"? That scene? That's what you're talking about, right?
You really need to lighten up, Francis.
posted by lodurr at 12:11 PM on November 21, 2007
You really need to lighten up, Francis.
posted by lodurr at 12:11 PM on November 21, 2007
(holds up mirror, waits...)
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:16 PM on November 21, 2007
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:16 PM on November 21, 2007
Stripes? That last comment took it straight into Pee-Wee's Big Adventure territory.
posted by breezeway at 1:13 PM on November 21, 2007
posted by breezeway at 1:13 PM on November 21, 2007
[looks in mirror]
Gack, my hair's a mess today.
GitM, if you want to get offended on behalf of the whole rest of the population of the world, I suppose I don't have any good reason that you can't. Just don't expect me to care.
posted by lodurr at 1:37 PM on November 21, 2007
Gack, my hair's a mess today.
GitM, if you want to get offended on behalf of the whole rest of the population of the world, I suppose I don't have any good reason that you can't. Just don't expect me to care.
posted by lodurr at 1:37 PM on November 21, 2007
If the question is "Who Would The World Elect for the President of the United States?", throwing out all the rules would give you answers like "v1agra", "marmalade", "The Collected Works of Stephen King", or "a34rnrw4f".
V1agra / Marmalade 2008!
You know, V1agra Marmalade would be a great name for a band...
posted by darkstar at 8:54 PM on December 17, 2007
V1agra / Marmalade 2008!
You know, V1agra Marmalade would be a great name for a band...
posted by darkstar at 8:54 PM on December 17, 2007
« Older Mass Psychogenic High School | Sarcasm: no longer the lowest form of humor Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ranchocalamari at 9:33 PM on November 18, 2007 [9 favorites]