Tropico

Just got it online as another something to do game. Dissapointed there was no Obama characture in the list of despots and socialists. Could try his form of government and economy and see if it won the election or actually cahnged the economy. I do have to spend a lot of money for qualified foriegn doctors for my societies mediacal care, since the country after the revolution can not produce its own fast enough. And only the non subsidized non nationalized parts of my economy seem to thrive....interesting.

Fun little game, planning a government and economy in a hypothetical island nation during the cold war. SO far I make a great dictator, nice planned economy, people are happy and no need for a 'rigged' election. Even had a thriving tourist economy in my little socialist heaven. Having the US and Soviets 'fight' over supporting my little regimes is a fun riot in itself.

....really...neither is the projected Obamaland

lol @ republicans complaining about a rigged election

oldsoldier wrote: Kinda like Chicago politics ain't it. BTW research the numbers of 2000 and stop believing the conspiricy therory.

Never! Bush knocked down the towers! The CIA is dropping crack in the ghettos!

Chewie was the Yao Ming of Endor. He dunked on the Storm Troopers and on the Ewoks. Eventually he was beaten by Buba Fett because no one beats the Fett.

brihard wrote: I find the 2000 election a beautiful reminder of the absurdity of the electoral college system. Gore got half a *million* more popular votes from Americans, yet Bush got elected. I recognize that's the constitutionally mandated system, but, like Chewbacca on Endor, it just doesn't make any sense.

oldsoldier wrote: every state has a equal say, not just the more populated states. The top 5 states NY,CA,MI,OH,FL could alone pick the president on thier popular vote count alone , overriding the remaining states.

You have that backwards. If it was purely based on popular votes, states wouldn't matter.

It's silly to pretend the states are in any way represented equally in the selection of President, though. It seems the worst of both worlds; the small states are still significantly less represented, and atthr same time a majority of Americans can vote for a man, yet he's not elected.

Fears of 'tyranny ofthe mob' are ridiculous, as is any mention of 'direct democracy'. Direct democracy is legislation through referendum, and 'tyranny of the mob' is bunk in the face of a constitution that offers a strong protection of minority rights.

I'm curious whethe the electoral college would be sonatrongly defended by Republicans had McCain gotten a half million more votes than Obama, yet still lost...

oldsoldier wrote: Do you understand the concept of the 'tyranny of the majority; in the true political sense? Example is the recent congress lead by the 'majority' over riding the will of the people and passed the health care reform bill in the face of the high level in dissent of the bill in its current form.

Holy crap, OS just said tool.