Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
POLLWONK

One World Government 2017

Recommended Posts

Well, there was an old joke i remember my teabagger friends kept telling me... "Why does Obama hate Israel so much? Because he's an alumnus of the other team." ;)

Anyway, I think one emerging issue of the One World Government should be the problem of unified parties and conflicting opinions. That would be a major issue in any future hypothetical one world government. But I'm open to any suggestions, as long as we can keep the number of parties and candidates to a managable level. This is probably the biggest challenge I've taken on for a scenario thus far, mostly because a lot of it is hypothetical.

realy, just think about abbas in the same party as obama- this will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there was an old joke i remember my teabagger friends kept telling me... "Why does Obama hate Israel so much? Because he's an alumnus of the other team." ;)

Anyway, I think one emerging issue of the One World Government should be the problem of unified parties and conflicting opinions. That would be a major issue in any future hypothetical one world government. But I'm open to any suggestions, as long as we can keep the number of parties and candidates to a managable level. This is probably the biggest challenge I've taken on for a scenario thus far, mostly because a lot of it is hypothetical.

How about the end of the fossil fuel supply for a hypothetical global crisis, and how said parties deal with it. Even the Islamists would need to take a side, as for many of them, oil's their biggest income earner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be interesting... A global energy crisis would be neat. I think its somewhat far fetched to say we will have run out by 2017, but maybe it's going faster than we thought?

I could also throw in some issues regarding religion, global warming, guns, burqas, etc.

How about the end of the fossil fuel supply for a hypothetical global crisis, and how said parties deal with it. Even the Islamists would need to take a side, as for many of them, oil's their biggest income earner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think burqas is a world wide issue, but the others are great idea.

the israeli-arabian conflict should probably fit in only one issue, and system of goverment can be interesting too.

somethink like far left will be communism, far right anarchia or dictaturism, and the other will be capitalism and socialysm in few levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't have parties based on region only, or the results will be too predictable. My suggestions:

Social Democratic Party

- Francois Hollande (France)

- Dilma Rousseff (Brazil)

- Manmohad Singh (India)

- Jacob Zuma (South Africa)

- Jens Stoltenberg (Norway)

Democratic Party

- Barack Obama (USA)

- Angela Merkel (Germany)

- David Cameron (UK)

- Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (Liberia)

Conservative Party

- Tony Abbott (Australia)

- Stephen Harper (Canada)

- Donald Tusk (Poland)

Imperial Conservative Party

- Paul Ryan (USA)

- Vladimir Putin (Russia)

- Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel)

- Xi Jinping (China)

Socialist Left and Radical Party

- Hugo Chavez (Venezuela)

- Cristina Kirchner (Argentina)

- Raul Castro (Cuba)

- Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)

- Alexis Tsipras (Greece)

Islamic Justice and Construction Party

- Mohammed Mursi (Egypt)

- Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey)

- Raja Pervaiz Ashraf (Pakistan)

Green Party

- Antanas Mockus (Colombia)

- Renate Künast (Germany)

- Elizabeth May (Canada)

Fascist Party

- Nikolaos Michaloliakos (Greece)

I second this, especially with Stephen Harper!

*Canadian bias coming into play*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't have parties based on region only, or the results will be too predictable. My suggestions:

Social Democratic Party

- Francois Hollande (France)

- Dilma Rousseff (Brazil)

- Manmohad Singh (India)

- Jacob Zuma (South Africa)

- Jens Stoltenberg (Norway)

Democratic Party

- Barack Obama (USA)

- Angela Merkel (Germany)

- David Cameron (UK)

- Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (Liberia)

Conservative Party

- Tony Abbott (Australia)

- Stephen Harper (Canada)

- Donald Tusk (Poland)

Imperial Conservative Party

- Paul Ryan (USA)

- Vladimir Putin (Russia)

- Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel)

- Xi Jinping (China)

Socialist Left and Radical Party

- Hugo Chavez (Venezuela)

- Cristina Kirchner (Argentina)

- Raul Castro (Cuba)

- Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)

- Alexis Tsipras (Greece)

Islamic Justice and Construction Party

- Mohammed Mursi (Egypt)

- Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey)

- Raja Pervaiz Ashraf (Pakistan)

Green Party

- Antanas Mockus (Colombia)

- Renate Künast (Germany)

- Elizabeth May (Canada)

Fascist Party

- Nikolaos Michaloliakos (Greece)

I also agree with this list and the inclusion of Harper, as well as maybe Kim Jong-un and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, perhaps one or both 'off-by-default.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that list too. Here are my suggestions for attributes (only for those I know enough about though):

Social Democratic Party:

- Francois Hollande (France) - Le - 3, In - 3, Ex, - 3, IF - 4, Ch - 2, St - 3, De - 3

- Dilma Rousseff (Brazil) - Le - 4, In - 3, Ex, - 3, IF - 3, Ch - 3, St - 4, De - 3

- Manmohad Singh (India) Le - 4, In - 4, Ex, - 5, IF - 4, Ch - 2, St - 2, De - 3

- Jacob Zuma (South Africa) - Le - 4, In - 2, Ex, - 4, IF - 3, Ch - 4, St - 3, De - 3

- Jens Stoltenberg (Norway)

Democratic Party

- Barack Obama (USA) - Le - 4, In - 3, Ex, - 4, IF - 5, Ch - 5, St - 4, De - 3

- Angela Merkel (Germany) - Le - 5, In - 3, Ex, - 5, IF - 5, Ch - 3, St - 4, De - 4

- David Cameron (UK) - Le - 3, In - 3, Ex, - 4, IF - 4, Ch - 3, St - 4, De - 3

- Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (Liberia)

Conservative Party

- Tony Abbott (Australia) - Le - 3, In - 3, Ex, - 3, IF - 3, Ch - 3, St - 4, De - 3

- Stephen Harper (Canada) - Le - 4, In - 3, Ex, - 4, IF - 4, Ch - 2, St - 4, De - 4

- Donald Tusk (Poland)

Imperial Conservative Party

- Paul Ryan (USA) - Le - 4, In - 3, Ex, - 3, IF - 4, Ch - 3, St - 4, De - 3

- Vladimir Putin (Russia) - Le - 5, In - 3, Ex, - 5, IF - 4, Ch - 4, St - 4, De - 3

- Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel) - Le - 4, In - 3, Ex, - 5, IF - 4, Ch - 4, St - 4, De - 3

- Xi Jinping (China)

Socialist Left and Radical Party

- Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) - Le - 4, In - 2, Ex, - 5, IF - 4, Ch - 5, St - 2, De - 3

- Cristina Kirchner (Argentina)

- Raul Castro (Cuba) - Le - 4, In - 2, Ex, - 4, IF - 3, Ch - 3, St - 2, De - 3

- Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) - Le - 4, In - 1, Ex, - 5, IF - 4, Ch - 4, St - 1, De - 3

- Alexis Tsipras (Greece) - Le - 3, In - 3, Ex, - 2, IF - 3, Ch - 4, St - 4, De - 3

Islamic Justice and Construction Party

- Mohammed Mursi (Egypt)

- Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey)

- Raja Pervaiz Ashraf (Pakistan)

Green Party

- Antanas Mockus (Colombia)

- Renate Künast (Germany)

- Elizabeth May (Canada) - Le - 3, In - 4, Ex, - 2, IF - 3, Ch - 3, St - 4, De - 3

Fascist Party

- Nikolaos Michaloliakos (Greece)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please put me on the list for any beta testing of this scenario and whatnot ... it sounds fantastic! The only two cents i'd through in is that i'd propose you run with 16 regions: each of the top ten most populous nations (with Canada and the US one unit; as South Park says "It's not a real country anyway." :D), plus the six continents comprised of all the other nations with electoral vote totals proportionate. But maybe you've already figured this aspect of the game out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Barack Obama (USA) - Le - 4, In - 3, Ex, - 4, IF - 5, Ch - 5, St - 4, De - 3

I'm nitpicking here, but I'd give Obama a 4 in Integrity. The Republicans have to make up scandals on him, like the whole birth certificate issue, cause he's so squeaky clean.

I'd be more likely to give him a 3 in Leadership or Experience than Integrity. Although I assume a 2017 version of Obama would have a 4 in both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm nitpicking here, but I'd give Obama a 4 in Integrity. The Republicans have to make up scandals on him, like the whole birth certificate issue, cause he's so squeaky clean.

I'd be more likely to give him a 3 in Leadership or Experience than Integrity. Although I assume a 2017 version of Obama would have a 4 in both.

Perhaps so, but while he's not exactly corrupt, he's not exactly lauded as being a man of great principle either (in the way that Eisenhower, Carter etc are).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is maybe why he doesn't get a 5, but I feel like he's run basically the most scandal-free Administration in a very long time in this country. And since, in this game, "integrity" mainly means "how easy is it for opponents to generate scandals," I think he should definitely be above-average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is maybe why he doesn't get a 5, but I feel like he's run basically the most scandal-free Administration in a very long time in this country. And since, in this game, "integrity" mainly means "how easy is it for opponents to generate scandals," I think he should definitely be above-average.

your'e right, he is able to hide his bad job very well.

i think he should be Leadership 3, integrity 4, issue familitary 3 (remember this is the world, and obama isn't so good about Foreign relations), charistma 5, stamina 4, debating 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:President Barack Obama L-4 (killing Bin Laden) I-3 (Flipfloping on issues:wants to cut Social Security, Medicare, cut spending, voting present in the IL Senate, killing US citizens without a trial, Libya) E-4 (He has been the "most powerful man in the world for eight years) IF 4 ( You could make an arguement for a 3 on economic issues, President Obama doesn't care about the details, but President Obama had world-wide respect in foreign relations and the US is respected more around the world since President Obama took office) St - 3 (people age after being President), D - 4 (He hit Romney hard in the last two Presidential debates)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that, given the way the "Integrity" attribute is used in this game, Obama should be above-average. It's all about the scandals, and he doesn't generate scandals. Flip-flopping on issues, or even just holding unpopular issue positions, is theoretically handled by the issue positions themselves. I think in general he'd be a pretty strong candidate in this context. I'd say Debating Skill would be the best place to make him average, as debating is not overall one of his strong suits, the last two debates of 2008 notwithstanding. He's not a bad debater, but he's not a particularly good one either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think we mean different things by "integrity." He may or may not have taken consistent positions on issues, but he runs a tight ship and there have been zero significant scandals either during his campaigns or during his time in office. The stimulus was spent with effectively zero waste/fraud. People have to make stuff up to be able to accuse him of doing anything scandalous.

Defining Integrity as "personal and campaign integrity" is circular; we still need to know what the word "integrity" means. And my impression is that the main function that the Integrity attribute plays in the mechanics of the game is that it makes it easier or harder for opponents to discover scandals about a candidate. Given how extremely hard it's been for anyone to unearth any actual scandals about Obama, I think he should be above-average in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stimulus did have some pork barrel spending that bought votes for it. There was a major scandal: Libya, The Obama admintration sought to cover up that terrorists attacked and claimed that we were attacked because of a video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stimulus did have some pork barrel spending that bought votes for it. There was a major scandal: Libya, The Obama admintration sought to cover up that terrorists attacked and claimed that we were attacked because of a video.

Fox News is the only place where that is considered a major scandal. The White House reported what they were told, then when told something different reported that ... there's no real scandal there. It's a manufactured one.

I totally agree with mahaadoxyz here. Obama has much more minor scandals than most politicians.

I also think Obama is only a 3 at debating. It's just that Romney and McCain are also 3s at debating, and Obama has more charisma, so it stands to reason that he'd win the majority of those debates. Put him in a debate against Bill Clinton in his prime for example, and I think Clinton would be the clear winner. And I'd say Clinton is a 5 at charisma and 4 at debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Obama administration changed the talking point about Libya. They were trying to cover up fact that terrorists attacked an U.S. Embassy, probably to protect President Obama's reelection. The CIA initial intelligence report had it was terrorists attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Obama administration changed the talking point about Libya. They were trying to cover up fact that terrorists attacked an U.S. Embassy, probably to protect President Obama's reelection. The CIA initial intelligence report had it was terrorists attack.

Since when have terrorist attacks been bad for politicians? Bush's approval rating sky rocketed after 9/11. They also went up every time the "terror levels" were raised.

There's just no reason to lie about whether an incident was a terrorist attack or not. And they'd know the truth would become obvious soon enough anyway, so purposely saying it wasn't a terrorist attack when you know it was would be incredibly stupid.

It was a misunderstanding, that was corrected. And if a Republican was in the Oval Office when this happened none of the talking heads on the right wing would be making a big deal over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...