Good lord, actor with pickled-brain 'elected'

Remove all ads!

I think there is a difference in saying, "I think this type of electoral system is better than that type for the following reasons..." and saying "system X proves you're uncivilized."

Would you agree that there is a distinction between the two Yago? I think I wasn't (well, I know I wasn't) and others weren't saying system X is the best but merely saying branding system X as 'uncivilized' in the manner it was was over ther top.

I think an electoral debate may be too big to do justice in an Arnold topic, YMMV.

 

I wrote:

I wrote that I, that is ME, do not think that Anglo-Saxon electoral-systems are desirable. And I wrote that I am living on the continent. Which just may mean, that I am biased to the continental system I, that is ME, an used too. And I, that is ME, wouldn't trade my system for nothing. And the other one is, that reforms in the UK as a whole are pending.

And I think the site I've linked to and quoted from, shows some disadvanteges of the vote-system in place in the UK and that there is a reform pending.

And what hell is up with that uncivilized ?

 

May be a translation thing. Everything everyone said about electoral systems (other than you) originated from a post saying the US is uncivilized for having its system. They were saying, variably, "that's going overboard to say the US is uncivilized for that" to "Well, that must mean all these other countries are uncivilized too"

You responded to these posts.

Those posts weren't intended to be a comprehensive statement on what the best electoral system is, just that a nation with an electoral system where someone can be elected with 49% of the vote is not necessarily uncivilzed.

That's it. That's all I intended. I think that's all the others intended.

Your post was about what you think the better electoral system is. I'm saying that for all we know, everyone might agree with you but we wouldn't know that because the other posts weren't really discussing that issue at all.

I think you raised another issue. A really big one. One that I think can't really be done justice in the same thread that Arnold is also discussed. Kinda like starting one thread about gun control and abortion and trying to debate both things in it - a lot there to handle.

So, when I asked you a question, I was trying to point out that you were essentially raising, or at least addressing something, that wasn't really previously addressed. People were merely saying that a certain system isn't uncivilized not that a certain system is the bestest (have I emphasized that enough?) So, don't get your dander up - I was just trying to see if you would agree with what everyone else other than the initial poster have to say on the subject:

Do you Yago, think our system qualifies us as uncivilized? That was the initial point. I was also trying to say that I thought your point was so big it's something of a hijack that won't be done justice in a thread designed to talk about Arnold.

 

I actually wasn't talking about the US specificly, but about the Anglo-Saxon majority systems, particularly Canada and the UK, because JSBB brought them up. He brought up the UK as example, for it. So I brought up that the UK is thinking about a general reform of its electoral-system.

And if you remember about the threads concerning the US-electoral system. I live too in a federation and I happen to have the same system, with to chambers, one a national one, one a "state" (Canton) one. Every canton gets two votes for being a canton concerning elections of the federal goverment. I also pointed out, that most Europeans live in mono-state, with no federal structure. Which leaves them puzzled by federations. And that's even for the federal-republic of Germany. The "federal" is a joke. The other European federation is Belgium and the Netherlands have some minor federal-structure.

Hm, the "civilized" was inside of JSBB's post, also the UK example. I only brought up, that the UK is seriously thinking about, yet not implementing on "national level", reform. I wasn't adressing the "civilized" part. Merily the reform attempts of the British, when the British are brought up.

Edit: Looked up in the dictionary: the voting system.

 

Well no, actually JSBB didn't bring up the civilized part. You've got to go back further. Inquisitor said something about the US being uncivilized for its electoral system and three or four different people responded to that saying essentially, "that doesn't make them uncivilized. Lots of other nations do that too." (JSBB's for example was just saying, that must mean Canada and the UK are uncivilized too). I think that's about the extent of what was meant. I'm just saying, I felt like you latched on to the replies and maybe saw in them something more than what they were - they weren't really meant to stake out a position on the overall merit of the various electoral systems but simply to reject that having such a system makes a nation uncivilized. No more, no less.

 

No, I actually didn't intend to go into "civilezd/uncivilized" but into the problems of a majority voting-system. So, yes, I had the feeling this would go into the merits of different voting systems.

 

I understand that's where you wanted to go. But what I'm trying to get across I suppose is that nobody else has gone there. Everyone else was talking about the civilized/uncivilized stuff - does that make sense? So, don't think anyone other than you has really staked out a position on which system is 'best' because that isn't really what anyone else was discussing. Also, it seems like a big topic tough to discuss coherently while talking about Arnold. That's it - probably should've been PM now that I think about it - I apologize.

 

Anyway, back on topic...

Exaggerate much?

I would hope you could back up your arguements here with something better than "he's a dumb bodybuilder who can't talk, who only got elected because he's a movie star."

Considering that my boss is a former world champion & hall of fame bodybuilder, I can certainly say with validity that bodybuilding DOES NOT equal stupidity. You're basing your arguement on a stereotype that's very outdated. Many of the top bodybuilding contendors today have college degrees, some even have PhDs. The sport still has it's share of meatheads, true, but they never go anywhere. Yes, Schwarzenegger is an admitted steroid user, but only for a brief period during his competition days. He hasn't used since the 70's. Taking steroids doesn't make him evil, and certainly doesn't make him stupid. At the time, it was common practice throughout the sport, and IIRC not illegal in Austria.

As for his politics and the "upset" of his win, this is no big shocker. The popularity of Arnold and others like Wesley Clark can largely be attributed to one simple fact: people are sick of career polititians. Non-polititions have a tendancy to connect with people in totally different ways. A big part of Gray Davis' downfall came from the fact that he completely failed to connect with his constituants. Arnold has a distinct advantage to do some real, much-needed good in this department.

As far as your claim that he's totally unqualified for the position, you may want to think that one over. True, he's not a career polititian. But so what? Since when do career polititians do the right thing? "Polititian" is a dirty word, AFAIC. He has, however started, funded and directed dozens of community, civic and after-school programs for cities in California since the 80's. He has spearheaded national fitness campaigns as well. Bottom line here is he knows how to talk to people and he's shown through action that he's not your stereotypical greedy Hollywood movie star.

He's also smart enough to have surrounded himself with a very qualified staff of advisors. The fact that he's very moderate also scores major points in my book, because that means he actually has a chance to get things done and make both the Dems and Republicans happy in the mean time.

But who knows - he may surprise me and totally screw California. But at this point, it's far too early to count him out and it's certainly illogical to write him off as "Dumb Ahhnold." I for one am rooting for him to succeed. California needs it.

[ October 09, 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Here are the three main reasons I voted for Arnold.

1. I believe that he cares about the state of humanity as a whole, as well as California.

2. He has always donated time and money to the children. (the kids are #1 with me)

3. He's got so much damn money, I don't think he can be bought by anyone.

Go Arnold!

 

Amen to that, Greenlion! (nice to see you, BTW, it's been a while!)

If we're going to go for some stereotypes, lets go for computer game players -- they're all nerdy, socially maladjusted little Goth hackers with no respect for other people as proved by the fact that they all make and send viruses out.
Right?
WRONG.

 

Well I do not exactly know how much a US governor must know about economics and politics to be able to work efficently but I trust he has all sorts of advisors for that kind of work.

And as said earlier Arnold has had a good attitude for this job and can't really do it only for money so I can't see why he couldn't be a gorvenor.

Let's just wait and see how he manages.

 

that it is InquisitorX, in more than one sense.
Anyway it takes more than one man to run a state, and I am pretty sure Arnie is surrounded by bright people. And at least the Arnie period can be viewed as an experiment of what qualifications a good leader in fact needs when it comes to success of a state. Good luck Arnie.

 

Nobleman - In regards to Arnold being surrounded by bright people, remember that's what they said when shrub became Prez and look at the state of things.

Also, on the debate about the electoral system: Who needs an election anyway when there is a Supreme Court?

 

I didnt think Arnold was so bad, but then again I really dont know him hardly at all except for seeing him in the Terminator series. I don't pay much attention to politics, much less get involved, I let others do that.

 

For those of you that live in California (like myself), I have to say that I am disappointed at this unfortunate turn of events. God knows, California has elected a spate of rather questionable politicians, Reagan among them...

But betwixt my bad vibes brimming for Arnold, logically I gather that many people did not vote for him because of his political dialogue, but his celebrity. Arnold attended no debates where the questions were not given in advance. Arnold has no history of political dialogue, except now, when he wants to be governor. Arnold hasn't voted in the last few elections. Arnold's last major political initiative was with the after-school programs, where he created the perfect cross-party issue that generated dissent only over one minor detail - its funding.

No one is saying Arnold is stupid (At least they can't say it and get away with it). He did not make it in America on muscle and smiles alone. He has charisma, he has charm, and he has a certain determination which it is hard NOT to admire.

However...
1) The rush to remove Gray Davis seemed as orchestrated as it was purely grass-roots. The populism behind it does not seem like it could achieve its overpowering momentum without massive funding and partisan courtship of the public.
2) Where is Arnold's support within the party itself? Are they truly backing him because his views coincided with theirs? Or was it to put a Republican governor in Sacramento? I notice how often they refer to him as a good, strong man, a good leader, etc. etc. without really referring to what he -really- stands for.

Well, if anyone is still following this thread... none of this indicates how well an Arnold administration will fare in office. I'm not particularly fond of Pete Wilson being on his staff - his energy deregulation schemes got us into this budget shortfall mess in the first place. He (Arnold) could do extraordinarily well, despite that sour bit, and we would all congratulate him if he were to do this.

But suddenly it seems politics requires no experience or training to participate in. Arnold wasn't giving us much except platitudes about "cleaning up" Sacramento, not spending more than you earn, rotten politicians, being the "people's governor".. whatever any of that stuff he said means.

To wrap up a long post... i've seen a lot of "just because Arnold is an actor doesn't mean he's... stupid/worthless/trite/a bad politician". And yet I've seen a lot of people who can't define a good reason for voting Arnold other than his celebrity. Politics is steadily decaying itself. This election was never about the issues, it was about Arnold's face smiling to a crowd of Terminator fans, who were, or believed they were, sick of a Davis that created this budget shortfall through his coddling of the prison lobby. Politics in general will never be about issues again. Arnold won by keeping non-confrontational and vague. This is what disappoints me the most.

 

The worst thing about Arnold being elected Governor is that it will just make more Californians flee to Arizona. Property values are so jacked up around here.

 

You have to like Arnold's latest comment on the subject of gay marriage:

"I think gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Really, it was on MSNBC. I wonder if that makes Arnold "gay" since he's married to a woman. At least I think he's married to someone who looks like a woman. Gee, I guess that makes me...

 

Probably Arnie tried to be funny, that is the sort of joke I can imagine Republicans just as conservatives all over the world to enjoy.
We in germany avoided that silly part by calling the thing something like "extramarital living community", which is basically a marriage except that it isn't That term sounds silly, but it avoids the sort of pun (even at the risk of sounding earnest) Arnie used. Gay marriage, even though the term contradicts itself, is a way to deal with the way society developed.

I for my part am not too happy with it in germany, mainly for reasons in german constitutional law, but that would lead to far here.

 

Tal - Really? I saw it on Keith Olberman's News Countdown last night.