But yeah, Social Democrats aren't getting a good PR in the show. Even excluding the "peculiar" case of Laugesen, they seem to be just a bunch of soulless bureaucrats. Which, I fear, is not so far from truth...

Well as much as you like to idolise them the Scandinavian Social Democrats are just goverment parties in the same spirit as Fianna Fail, or the LDP in Japan with little cohesive ideology and lots of burocracy and old power structures, and the fact that they've been losing their "God-given" right to power has brought out the worst in them.

Meh, Reinfeldt is not to bad for a European rightist so I wouldn't really mind him as EC President. He can't be worse than Barroso.

Are you sure? Reinfeldt would be very pro-austerity, and would probably back the Merkel economic plan 100%.

I wouldn't mind of course. I'd love to see him in that position. Not to mention it'd shake up Swedish politics.

Löfvén is most certainly better than the last two S leaders, but considering those were a cumpulsive liar and Mrs Scandal without any leadership skills it's hardly a competion.

I think the red-greens will outnumber the Alliance this time around, mostly because all energy and all new ideas seem to have disappeared from the Alliance. And S has learnt a bit from the failed 2010 campaign. Still I don't think they'll get their own majority, it'll be another hung parliament, and any left-wing government will have a hard time staying in power.


Btw, as we're on the topic of Swedish politics... there are rumours that Reinfeldt wants to succed Barosso as President of the EU commission in 2014, and thus will step down this year to leave way to a new M-leader and PM.

It's brilliant. Although on several occations I've found myself cheering on the opposition parties. I think Birgitte is lovely, but some of her policies are horrible.

Isn't she basically a centrist? I always thought of her party as the fictional equivalent of RL Radikale Venstre. Why would a Scandinavian centrist hate another Scandinavian centrist so much?

I didn't say I hated her. I said some of her policies are horrible
Most of the time I can accept her politics, but on some occations I sort of find myslef cheering for her to fail. Such as in the episode where she pushes through affermative action for women in corporate boards. And I wouldn't vote for De Moderate, I would vote for De Liberale.

I sort of find it very intresting though that the main villian of the story is the Social Democrat though. And that the show often show the Social Democratic party in the show in a very negative light, at least much more so than any of the opposition parties. Guess that is a bit of it's appeal to me.

Anyway you have something to look forward to with season 2.

It's brilliant. Although on several occations I've found myself cheering on the opposition parties. I think Birgitte is lovely, but some of her policies are horrible.

Waiting for season 3, it's suppouse to be broadcasted on Swedish TV starting in late April. It's like waiting for christmas.

While it helps LGBT couples in CA and the 10 states that have SSM, it will do nothing for the ones in the rest of the country.

The war usually isn't won in a day. The court striking down DOMA is the important part. With public oppinion evolving on the issue as fast as it is, we might actually see a majority of the country legalising it by itself before the court reviews it again. 

Write In: Scotland.

You a Scottish separatist now, afleitch? 

He's been for quite a while. You need to keep more updated old man.

I'm not sure this works, but is it the date when the state had the most electoral votes?

Nah Hawaii, Alaska and D.C. all have different colours. 

Haha, I only read the title of the thread, not the whole question. >.<
So I obviously answered wrong on this question.

I can just imagine Inks waterboarding Bushie.

I might have been a bit generous on Romney.

Republican PAC runs the following ad

Have you ever wondered why Batman took in a teenage boy to live with him?

The GOP attacking Batman for taking on an orphaned teenage boy...

That would be the biggest backfire since Dole's godless ad.

Winfield, I hope you're not planning to become campaign manager one day. You wouldn't do a very good job I'm afraid.

The gay marriage logo: Harassment in red and pink (Vanity)

Is anyone else feeling harassed by the gay rights “equals” logo? I see it everywhere: it fills my Facebook page, it is on the news, it is everywhere and I feel pounded by it.

This enormous red and pink “equals” sign is strong and effective; it is also becoming a bully club as it appears everywhere and those who bear it seem to want to beat us into submission.

My job is analyzing art, so let’s look at this sign. Isn’t purple the color of the gay alliance? Wouldn’t a pink equals against a purple background be prettier and more softly effective? Wouldn’t the rainbow of colors also refer to gay rights?

No, whoever designed this obnoxious logo wants to hit us as hard as possible: the red presses forward, the pink recedes but subtly. The edges are hard. The “equals” sign can be red on several levels: as an “equals” of course, but also as clubs, as anything hard and flat….like blinders.

As a professor in a liberal state, I have friends across the spectrum, on Facebook and elsewhere. I have friends who are gay and married and those who are very Christian and most opposed to such marriage and many more friends in between. But when I log on to Facebook now, only one sign dominates: that red “equals” sign is everywhere, hammering me. It is a particularly obnoxious sign and, to me, signals what the liberals always do, bully one into submission.

Why is it always those gays bullying and beating up bigots? When will this injustice stop. 

As to the original question, obviously it isn't fair, but in the same way as Obama winning all of California's electoral votes wasn't fair.

And considering Obama won a much greater EC victory than popular vote victory the system if anything was more unfair to Romney.

Nor surprising. More and more, in most elections around the world left=city, right=countryside (through, there is exceptions like Scandinavia).

There plenty of examples. Saying  left=city, right=countryside is really an oversimplyfication. In most Western countries, the wealthier areas vote for the right, while the poor areas vote for the left. It just happens that in many cases the countryside happens to be more well off, but that is far from always the truth.

You don't have to look further than Ontario. Which is more rural, north or south Ontario? Which is more right-wing? Andalucia vs Madrid? Munich vs rural Brandenburg? Not too metion countries in Africa and Asia.

It really only in the US where you see really poor rural areas voting right, and really rich urban/suburban areas voting left. (And even in the US it's not entierly correct.)

Strangely enough, I'm short-sighted, but just on my left eye, my right eye has perfect vision.

There are reasons to wear glasses other than being short-sighted.

^ That ^, and there's also something known as contact lences, so not all short-sighted people wear glasses. At least not in the Western world. 

This thread makes me wish I wasn't at this forum.

English and Swedish hands down. Though I was at the top of my class in most other subjects as well, but that says more about my class than me.

According to the earliest leaks, Cardinal Bergoglio was the leading candidate in the whole conclave.

Those cardinals seem to be a gossiping bunch.

Will Cristina Kirchner be losing sleep over it anyway?

Of course not. The Falklands are just an easy issue for politicians to pander to stupid voters in Argentina.

More black smoke pouring from the chapel

Yeah this has about as much chance as a snowball in Sahara.

Personally I think the Spanish system would be the best here. (of those listed at least)

How do you think the 16-17 turnout rate would compare to the general population?

Depends if the schools registered them. If they didn't it'd be terrible (at least in this country), as evidenced by over half of UK 17-25 year olds not being registered to vote.

Why not just register someone automaticly the day they reach the voting age. Works in a lot of countries.

In Britain 16 year olds can join the army, marry and pay taxes yet they cannot vote.

Yes but the problem isn't that they can't vote. The problem is that they can do those things. 16-year-olds shouldn't be able to marry or join the army either. (or drive!) You should raise those age limits, not lower this one.   

I know as well as you that there are plently of adults who aren't mature enough to vote either. But while I'd argue that more 21-year-olds are sane than stupid, I would never claim that more 16-year-olds are sane than stupid.