peoples votes should count, not the states electoral pts

To be brief, my opinion of it is that it's a fine system for what it's intended for, but in modern times has become largely inappropriate.

The way I see it, it was designed to election a President of the United States. Like the Senate, this is intended to be a governing body of the states. The problem is that the federal government has taken so much power that the President is ruling over the people and not just the states; for example, federal drug laws inhibiting the will of the people in states such as Colorado and California to decriminalize marijuana, and in other states to decriminalize medical uses. I don't think the federal government having these powers is a bad thing, and in fact I think that state laws are generally worse.

Generally speaking, I think the idea of a sort of 'chairman' for relations between the states is fine, but in modern times I think that having the president as more than a figurehead (or possibly emergency service) is a bad idea. We need far more direct democracy, instead of congressional law, and the President should be very limited in powers, except during times of crisis (which would need to be limited in length, and sustained by the people's vote at frequent intervals to prevent someone from abusing it) . I don't think simply changing the numbers counted to decide who becomes president is sufficient for truly making the country any more democratic. All of the votes and electoral votes in the country doesn't mean snot to a second term president.
 
[quote name='billyrox']exactly. plus the people in the small states still vote, and their vote is the same weight as everyone else's.


its completely fair ...unlike now where it is arbitrary weighted.[/quote]

By your logic, the Senate isn't completely fair.

The ratio of citizens to senators is much lower in a state such as Alaska than in California.

Why should only 600,000 people in a state such as Alaska get to send as powerful as a representative as a Senator to DC when only 600,000 people voting for a senator in California would be viewed as a horrible loss?

If we want to be "fair", we can't have a Senate.

...

Regarding the electoral college, wouldn't scrapping it invite even attempts to defraud the electorate?

Take a safe "blue" or "red" state for example. If every vote counted, wouldn't every state be a battleground state? Wouldn't every election official of a party leaning have an incentive to disenfranchise as many voters of the opposite party as possible?

Is the system perfect? No. No representative democracy can fully emulate a direct democracy.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']By your logic, the Senate isn't completely fair.

The ratio of citizens to senators is much lower in a state such as Alaska than in California.

Why should only 600,000 people in a state such as Alaska get to send as powerful as a representative as a Senator to DC when only 600,000 people voting for a senator in California would be viewed as a horrible loss?

If we want to be "fair", we can't have a Senate.

[/quote]


As mentioned before, the Senate has the House of Representatives to balance them out.
 
Electoral College makes sure every state counts in the voting process. If it was based off the popular vote, candidates would just campaign in the larger voting areas for votes, meaning less emphasis in a lot of states.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Electoral College makes sure every state counts in the voting process. If it was based off the popular vote, candidates would just campaign in the larger voting areas for votes, meaning less emphasis in a lot of states.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to now, where the emphasis is on smaller voting areas for fewer votes from fewer demographics.

Helluva way to describe fairness there, lou.
 
[quote name='speedracer']As opposed to now, where the emphasis is on smaller voting areas for fewer votes from fewer demographics.

Helluva way to describe fairness there, lou.[/quote]

Hasn't Obama traveled to more states than a typical presidential candidate?

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe his entire bottom up campaign style has put more states into play than if Hillary was the nominee.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Hasn't Obama traveled to more states than a typical presidential candidate?

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe his entire bottom up campaign style has put more states into play than if Hillary was the nominee.[/quote]


He has, but if you look at it. both presidential campaigns mainly focus on Ohio, Penn, and Fl. That's it.

Isn't this focus in a few states exactly what you were afraid of if it changed to a popular vote?

Its already happening in the electoral system except people do not have an equal vote.
 
[quote name='billyrox']He has, but if you look at it. both presidential campaigns mainly focus on Ohio, Penn, and Fl. That's it.

Isn't this focus in a few states exactly what you were afraid of if it changed to a popular vote?

Its already happening in the electoral system except people do not have an equal vote.[/quote]

I believe the concern would be candidates focusing on major population centers such as New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles while less populated areas would be completely ignored for the entire campaign.

The current focus on a handful of states has occurred at the end of the campaign. All of the other states have tilted one way or the other.

The system is still incredibly damaged. I just think moving away from the electoral college is the wrong direction.

However, I'll agree with you if McCain wins with 35% of the vote.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I believe the concern would be candidates focusing on major population centers such as New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles while less populated areas would be completely ignored for the entire campaign.

The current focus on a handful of states has occurred at the end of the campaign. All of the other states have tilted one way or the other.

The system is still incredibly damaged. I just think moving away from the electoral college is the wrong direction.

However, I'll agree with you if McCain wins with 35% of the vote.[/quote]

lol, you never know... that could be possible...:D
 
anyone know why we dont use pictures instead of names when we vote

ALSO i think all ads should be banned and only do debates

Look at how much money they wasted on ads.. That would fed the homeless people for months and probally gave everyone free or cheap health insurance
 
[quote name='slidecage']anyone know why we dont use pictures instead of names when we vote

ALSO i think all ads should be banned and only do debates

Look at how much money they wasted on ads.. That would fed the homeless people for months and probally gave everyone free or cheap health insurance[/quote]

:roll: someones a socialist :baby:
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Hasn't Obama traveled to more states than a typical presidential candidate?

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe his entire bottom up campaign style has put more states into play than if Hillary was the nominee.[/QUOTE]
Yea, he's been down with the 50 state strategy since the beginning. It's one of the reasons (imo, a case can be made) that McCain is having to play defense.

That's what I think the real laugher about this whole electoral college thing is. It would be a wet dream for a clever campaign manager running against someone hoping to run with like 5 states. I would make an issue out of it and pound the crap out of em on it, showing my guy in the little states. You'd just have to put your candidate in a small town once a week and that'd make the other guy look like an elitist douche. Even big city peeps would be turned off by someone pulling that crap. Unlike now, where it seems to me the Ohios and Pennsylvanias genuinely don't give a fuck what the rest of us want and seem to love the lavish attention given to them at the expense of the rest of us. Then, with a straight face, they'll try to explain how this way, their way, is best for everyone.

It would put the campaign much more in context, instead of pandering to Ohio/Florida/*insertflavoroftheweek*.

Oh no! No one would visit Montana! Oh wait. They don't already.
Oh no! No one would visit Ohio as much! Cry me a fuckin river.

They aren't defending the rights of the small population states, or they'd defend Montana. They're defending their own interests. Enough of the bullshit, I say.
 
[quote name='speedracer']

They aren't defending the rights of the small population states, or they'd defend Montana. They're defending their own interests. Enough of the bullshit, I say.[/quote]


[quote name='crystalklear64']Why even bother to separate people into states?

Just let anyone vote where ever they are at the time for the national election.[/quote]


exactly, we only need the popular vote. just make it fair and simple.

one vote should just be one vote.



(i wonder if we could possibly make an amendment to the constitution. thats the whole reason the founding fathers made the possibility to make amendments to our constitution... or else women and blacks still would not be allowed to vote.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There really isn't anything stopping us from amending the Constitution. It's just the crooked ass politicians that love the Electoral College because it makes the whole system so complicated that no one really bitches that we've had Presidents that somehow lost the popular vote. The state of Florida should've never decided the election in 2000. One person in one state (Katherine Harris) shouldn't have been able to sway the election one way or the other if we just made it a popular vote.
 
its almost like people think we live in a democracy. well sorry guys, its a republic.

the only reason people in are in a such a huff about it is because they are still bitter about bush/gore. nevermind that bush won his re-election with a majority vote and a majority of the electoral college. a president winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote has only happened 3 times in the history of the us. so the electoral college "works" 95% of the time.

the founding fathers wanted every state to have a say in the union, which is why we have the senate. but they also wanted every state to have a say in the leader, which is why we have the electoral college. even 200 years ago they knew that jefferson would only had to campaign in a few select areas and ignore the rest of the country if it were a popular vote system. thats why the founding fathers included it in that little thing we all love, the constitution.

speedracer made a crack about nobody caring about montana, but montana is considered a swing state this year. obama and mccain are neck and neck, you think obama wants mccain to get those 3 electoral votes. hell no, so guess what, obama spent the 4th of july in montana. were it a popular vote system id be willing to wager thats the last time we see a nominee visit butte.

if anything we need to get old school. by doing what i said earlier and get rid of the winner-take-all electoral system like it used to be. that would make just about every state a swing state. hell, im even for having vice presidents run separate again. ill tell you what, we wouldnt have j-o-b-s biden and hockey mom palin in the mix right now.

either way, dont worry kids. one of those other great things about the aforementioned constitution is, we can change it. so if youre really that butt hurt about it maybe you can write your congressman or get involved in some grass roots movement to try and change the law instead of complaining "oh well it should be like this".

[quote name='billyrox'] thats the whole reason the founding fathers made the possibility to make amendments to our constitution... [/QUOTE]

yup, almost like they knew what they were doing. maybe they were right about other things in there... like the electoral college...
 
[quote name='Msut77']Drudge called, he wants his hat back.[/QUOTE]


oh how ive missed you msut. you must have missed the part where i was talking about montana... well lets just chalk this one up to my inferior writing ability again and move on.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']oh how ive missed you msut. you must have missed the part where i was talking about montana... well lets just chalk this one up to my inferior writing ability again and move on.[/QUOTE]

Until tuesday night you mean?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']its almost like people think we live in a democracy. well sorry guys, its a republic.

the only reason people in are in a such a huff about it is because they are still bitter about bush/gore. nevermind that bush won his re-election with a majority vote and a majority of the electoral college. a president winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote has only happened 3 times in the history of the us. so the electoral college "works" 95% of the time.
[/quote]

great, the electoral college works 95% of the time. take it out, use the popular vote, and it will "work" 100% of the time


[quote name='RAMSTORIA']

either way, dont worry kids. one of those other great things about the aforementioned constitution is, we can change it. so if youre really that butt hurt about it maybe you can write your congressman or get involved in some grass roots movement to try and change the law instead of complaining "oh well it should be like this".
[/quote]:applause:



[quote name='RAMSTORIA']

yup, almost like they knew what they were doing. maybe they were right about other things in there... like the electoral college...[/quote]

no, they were not always right -thats why they put in amendments, such as the time we needed to modify the constitution to give women the right to vote. oh, and the abolish slavery... which was talked about in the constitution such as slaves being worth 3/5 of a human.

they put it in there because they knew they could be wrong. ... and they are about the electoral college.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, this is a republic but that concerns the Senate and the House. We elect representatives and they vote according to their conscience.

The Electoral College is a shadow operation of people that voted however the hell they wanted to at first. You could vote for a Presidential candidate and it wouldn't matter. It's part of the Federal system and not a Republic.
 
[quote name='billyrox']great, the electoral college works 95% of the time. take it out, use the popular vote, and it will "work" 100% of the time[/quote]
Its EASIER to rig an election thats popular vote because less areas have to be switched (out of the fewer areas that matter). Including more states in the process make it fractionally more difficult to rig.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Its EASIER to rig an election thats popular vote because less areas have to be switched (out of the fewer areas that matter). Including more states in the process make it fractionally more difficult to rig.[/quote]


i'm pretty sure that a more complicated system would be easier to rig.
 
This isnt about complexity, its about involving more states. Rigging more states is absolutely harder than rigging less states, independent of what the system is, 100% of the time.
 
Hmmm, neither presidential candidate is in Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania. VP candidates are another story.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/01/obama-mccain-visit-red-st_n_139946.html



The Republican spent much of the day in Virginia, trying to make up ground in a state that has not voted Democratic since 1964 but leans that way now. "We're a few points down but we're coming back," he said. "I'm not afraid of the fight, I'm ready for it and you're going to fight with me."
Obama was in Nevada, then Colorado and Missouri, all states that voted for [COLOR=#038258 ! important][FONT=Arial,&quot][COLOR=#038258 ! important][FONT=Arial,&quot]President [/FONT][COLOR=#038258 ! important][FONT=Arial,&quot]Bush[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] four years ago.

...

Biden was in Indiana today (on his way to Ohio).

Palin is in Florida.
 
To be fair, I'd be for the popular vote since major population centers are going to be liberal. Its very consistent, you can translate population density directly into how liberal a place is going to be.
 
yup, almost like they knew what they were doing. maybe they were right about other things in there... like the electoral college...
Click to expand...
Before we go too far down the Constitution hero worship road, let's not forget the fun part about the 3/5ths compromise.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']its almost like people think we live in a democracy. well sorry guys, its a republic.[/quote]
That's not a good reason not to change. I'm just saying.
the only reason people in are in a such a huff about it is because they are still bitter about bush/gore. nevermind that bush won his re-election with a majority vote and a majority of the electoral college.
Click to expand...
Totally irrelevant.
a president winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote has only happened 3 times in the history of the us. so the electoral college "works" 95% of the time.
Click to expand...
I would prefer a system that works 100% of the time.
but they also wanted every state to have a say in the leader, which is why we have the electoral college. even 200 years ago they knew that jefferson would only had to campaign in a few select areas and ignore the rest of the country if it were a popular vote system. thats why the founding fathers included it in that little thing we all love, the constitution.
Click to expand...
That's not the only reason, or even the biggest reason. The biggest and best reasons for the college have long since been rendered moot by the modern world. I would put small states having a say being reason #3 or #4. Where would you put it?

speedracer made a crack about nobody caring about montana, but montana is considered a swing state this year. obama and mccain are neck and neck, you think obama wants mccain to get those 3 electoral votes. hell no, so guess what, obama spent the 4th of july in montana. were it a popular vote system id be willing to wager thats the last time we see a nominee visit butte.
Click to expand...
Whoosh. The airplane goes right over head.

The point you aren't getting is that the four biggest cities in America will never see the candidate in the general election. Are you prepared to defend the concept that it's more important to the health of the union that the candidates go to Butte instead of Los Angeles? or Houston? Really?

It's political socialism to the extreme. Because these states matter nothing to the union economically, socially, educationally, research-wise, or any other wise, we have to pretend they matter every 4 years. Nascar dads?? Gimme a break. Meanwhile, the places where the future of this country are decided can't get a presidential candidate in town because they're too busy flipping pancakes for 80 year old retired mill workers from a population 700 town in Ohio.

That's not a system that works for the future of America.
if anything we need to get old school. by doing what i said earlier and get rid of the winner-take-all electoral system like it used to be. that would make just about every state a swing state. hell, im even for having vice presidents run separate again. ill tell you what, we wouldnt have j-o-b-s biden and hockey mom palin in the mix right now.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with both of those. I'd say they're a step in the right direction.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']This isnt about complexity, its about involving more states. Rigging more states is absolutely harder than rigging less states, independent of what the system is, 100% of the time.[/quote]

not really... it provides more opportunities for rigging
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I'm...speechless.

Give me any scenario in which rigging more areas is easier than rigging fewer.[/quote]


okay very simple.

you have 1 area. you rig that. lots of scrutiny, people can catch it.

you have 50 areas. you can rig any of the 50, or any combination of the 50 w/o anyone catching it. (to fuk up a system you dont have to mess up all 50 places, you just need to mess up 1 area)

it simply provides more opportunities for error, cheating, etc.
 
We really do live in two different realities. I want there to be more total opportunities for vote fraud.

Let me say it again:

You want MORE opportunities, not less, to rig it. This is because just rigging one doesnt get you the win when there are 50. Rigging one does get you the win when there is only one area.

You assume tighter security in the scenario of one area, but you absolutely cant count on that - Perfect security is impossible. Better to assume that rigging is absolutely going to happen and dilute its influence, rather than set it up to where rigging automatically wins if (when) it happens.

Insurance against the inevitable, if you will. I assume that
1) fraud absolutely will happen
2) people involved will get away with it.

If those 2 are true, then you do not want your eggs in fewer baskets, you want them in more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']We really do live in two different realities. I want there to be more total opportunities for vote fraud.

Let me say it again:

You want MORE opportunities, not less, to rig it. This is because just rigging one doesnt get you the win when there are 50. Rigging one does get you the win when there is only one area.

You assume tighter security in the scenario of one area, but you absolutely cant count on that - Perfect security is impossible. Better to assume that rigging is absolutely going to happen and dilute its influence, rather than set it up to where rigging automatically wins if (when) it happens.

Insurance against the inevitable, if you will. I assume that
1) fraud absolutely will happen
2) people involved will get away with it.

If those 2 are true, then you do not want your eggs in fewer baskets, you want them in more.[/quote]


well we do disagree. i think that a more complex system leads to a higher possibility for cheating. where a simple system decreases it.


i guess we can just agree to disagree. i dont really want to spend the effort arguing about a tangent point especially since you already admitted that you would also prefer the presidential election to be based on popular vote anyway:D

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']To be fair, I'd be for the popular vote since major population centers are going to be liberal. Its very consistent, you can translate population density directly into how liberal a place is going to be.[/quote]
and thats the main thing i'm arguing for in this thread.;)
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']We really do live in two different realities. I want there to be more total opportunities for vote fraud.

Let me say it again:

You want MORE opportunities, not less, to rig it. This is because just rigging one doesnt get you the win when there are 50. Rigging one does get you the win when there is only one area.

You assume tighter security in the scenario of one area, but you absolutely cant count on that - Perfect security is impossible. Better to assume that rigging is absolutely going to happen and dilute its influence, rather than set it up to where rigging automatically wins if (when) it happens.

Insurance against the inevitable, if you will. I assume that
1) fraud absolutely will happen
2) people involved will get away with it.

If those 2 are true, then you do not want your eggs in fewer baskets, you want them in more.[/QUOTE]
301,139,947+ baskets would be better than 538 then.
 
[quote name='billyrox']and thats the main thing i'm arguing for in this thread.;)[/quote]

The main reason for arguing is that some liberals are scared this generation's liberal version of Ronald Reagan is going to blow a 7 point lead against this generation's conservative version of Walter Mondale in three days.

...

My dad and I were talking about this election yesterday. He was worried the results to the election might take a few days. I mentioned how all but one poll out of 150+ have Obama taking the election. I advised him the results to this election are going to go as fast as the time our unarmed patriarch in his late 70s was mugged by a couple of blacks. They knocked his ass down, grabbed his wallet and ran.

...

The Republican side is getting desperate. The NRA sent my dad (he's a member) a mailer claiming Obama is going to raise the price of a simple hunting rifle to $5000 and a brick of ammo to $500. His "staunch Republican" coworker claims Obama is going to enact mind control over all citizens. (EDIT: He couldn't help but wonder how fucking stupid people have to be to believe this.) Today, there was some 60+ year old man knocking on my door to verify the address of registered voters. Just a few minutes ago, I saw an ad linking Obama with Rev. Wright and the "God Damn America" sermon.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']301,139,947+ baskets would be better than 538 then.[/quote]
The individual voters arent the baskets, and cant be unless each person has their own voting machine. Voters are the eggs. Baskets are how you group them.

Voters have to be grouped somehow, even if its just popular vote. That is to say, each voter has to go to one voting machine or one polling place. Those sites are the locations where the corruption is going to take place.

You want as many locations to matter as possible. In the popular vote situation, you dont have 300 million eggs. You've got slightly over half that many eggs, in like a dozen states or less.

In the electoral college, more PLACES matter, and thus more corruption has to take place in order to flip an entire election. So its a case of more being less, and less being more. If everyone matters, than significantly fewer people end up really mattering.
___________

The fundamental difference is whether or not you believe that fraud is guaranteed to happen and to go uncaught. If you do, then you want to minimize its influence by having more locations matter. If you believe that there are scenarios in which all fraud will be caught, then it is acceptable to raise the stakes and have fewer locations matter.
___________

And really, I dont like winner take all. It should be proportional representation, rather than have 51% rule.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The individual voters arent the baskets, and cant be unless each person has their own voting machine. Voters are the eggs. Baskets are how you group them.

Voters have to be grouped somehow, even if its just popular vote. That is to say, each voter has to go to one voting machine or one polling place. Those sites are the locations where the corruption is going to take place.

You want as many locations to matter as possible. In the popular vote situation, you dont have 300 million eggs. You've got slightly over half that many eggs, in like a dozen states or less.

In the electoral college, more PLACES matter, and thus more corruption has to take place in order to flip an entire election. So its a case of more being less, and less being more. If everyone matters, than significantly fewer people end up really mattering.[/QUOTE]

Except you're wrong. Voters don't vote at polling places controlled by the states themselves, they vote in local precincts. There are hundreds of thousands (estimating here) of precincts across the country. These then report to counties, and the counties report the votes. At least that's how it works here in Virginia, I think it works that way everywhere else as well. As an example, our counties and cities post the results on their websites. Since literally thousands of precincts or hundreds of counties would have to be rigged under this system, that makes it pretty unlikely.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']To be fair, I'd be for the popular vote since major population centers are going to be liberal.[/QUOTE]

Well, I agree that we should abolish the Electoral College, but not for this or any other partisan reason. Maybe you didn't notice the polls after the Republican Convention, which showed McCain ahead in the popular vote and Obama ahead in the electoral vote? This should be done for fairness reasons and updating an antiquated system, not as an attempt to give advantage to one party or another.
 
That is certainly a weakness of the electoral system. I like that two (?) states can split their electoral votes.

The only counties that are going to matter in a popular vote are the ones that comprise the most populous cities. However many precincts there are country wide, or even state wide, is irrelevant. The vast majority of them wont even matter.

I would rather the process involve more overall locations, in a greater variety of places. The only way to do that, is to weigh them differently.

Can we at least all agree that with popular vote, the votes that matter are in fewer overall states?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, I agree that we should abolish the Electoral College, but not for this or any other partisan reason. Maybe you didn't notice the polls after the Republican Convention, which showed McCain ahead in the popular vote and Obama ahead in the electoral vote? This should be done for fairness reasons and updating an antiquated system, not as an attempt to give advantage to one party or another.[/quote]

:applause:
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The main reason for arguing is that some liberals are scared this generation's liberal version of Ronald Reagan is going to blow a 7 point lead against this generation's conservative version of Walter Mondale in three days.

...

My dad and I were talking about this election yesterday. He was worried the results to the election might take a few days. I mentioned how all but one poll out of 150+ have Obama taking the election. I advised him the results to this election are going to go as fast as the time our unarmed patriarch in his late 70s was mugged by a couple of blacks. They knocked his ass down, grabbed his wallet and ran.

...

The Republican side is getting desperate. The NRA sent my dad (he's a member) a mailer claiming Obama is going to raise the price of a simple hunting rifle to $5000 and a brick of ammo to $500. His "staunch Republican" coworker claims Obama is going to enact mind control over all citizens. (EDIT: He couldn't help but wonder how fucking stupid people have to be to believe this.) Today, there was some 60+ year old man knocking on my door to verify the address of registered voters. Just a few minutes ago, I saw an ad linking Obama with Rev. Wright and the "God Damn America" sermon.[/QUOTE]

i will admit some of the ads are just sick

i got a flyer the other day saying that obama supports the bill that will put babies who live though an
abortion to be placed in a dark room until they die.

was in the paper the other day. GUNS FLYING OFF SHELVES as reports obama will make very tough gun laws


personally i dont think either should win. What pisses me off is this .. Obama was doing a speech a few months back and said how he promissed he would turn around the downturn we are facing.

Someone asked him if he won and we are worse in 4 years then we are now will he take the blame.

His responce was that it would be BUSH's fault cause he did too much damage. He also said something about how it would be congress Fault as well cause they did everything they could do to stop him (under tone was they were racists)

Thats right he will blame bush if it gets worse even though he is the prez for 4 years

all he does is play the race card and makes up why its not HIS FAULT if something happens

If sure once he wins if we get attacked again he will make it look like it was bush's fault and not his own



do you really think other countries around the world will respond to someone who came out of nowhere

now play the FLIP Card

mccain wins and dies.... Just think of all of the places in the world that think a women should not be in power... Got to wonder how they would handle a women prez


WOW I thought SIGNS were free

Veterans Double-Sided Poly Bag Sign - 250000 pcs. $212,500 bucks
http://shopmccain.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=22_34_44
 
[quote name='slidecage']
Someone asked him if he won and we are worse in 4 years then we are now will he take the blame.

His responce was that it would be BUSH's fault cause he did too much damage. He also said something about how it would be congress Fault as well cause they did everything they could do to stop him (under tone was they were racists)

Thats right he will blame bush if it gets worse even though he is the prez for 4 years
[/QUOTE]

I would love for you to find that video. I think what you bring up here is key, and very likely will be reality.

3 or 4 years from now, if I still frequent this site, I fully expect the common topic of argument/discussion to be whether or not the shit is still Bush's fault and not Obama's.

Election of 2012 will be a tough one for Obama, I predict. Most of the campaign will be Obama trying to still blame everything on Bush policies while Republicans will point at Obama and say "see we told you so". Should be a doozy.

I'm just not sure I can stand another round of idiot American's believing their only viable solutions are these two defunct parties.
 
[quote name='slidecage']i will admit some of the ads are just sick

i got a flyer the other day saying that obama supports the bill that will put babies who live though an
abortion to be placed in a dark room until they die.[/QUOTE]

Zounds! Just wait until you find out that this is actually true. Really. I'm not kidding. Look it up.

Or better yet, read this and decide for yourself:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I would love for you to find that video. I think what you bring up here is key, and very likely will be reality.

3 or 4 years from now, if I still frequent this site, I fully expect the common topic of argument/discussion to be whether or not the shit is still Bush's fault and not Obama's.

Election of 2012 will be a tough one for Obama, I predict. Most of the campaign will be Obama trying to still blame everything on Bush policies while Republicans will point at Obama and say "see we told you so". Should be a doozy.

I'm just not sure I can stand another round of idiot American's believing their only viable solutions are these two defunct parties.[/QUOTE]

I can't agree more. I think it will be hard for obama to blame bush after 4 years where democrats will most likely have large, unfilliabusterable(is that a word?) majorities in the house and senate. Obamas presidency may be like Hoover's in that he will get the blame for the enoconomy.

Although I would like "change" I hardly think the democrats or republicans will deliever real change, or viable solutions to our problems. 4 years from now I think we will all look around and see minimal differences in our personal lives(unless obama and the democrats actually reform health care or something major).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I would love for you to find that video. I think what you bring up here is key, and very likely will be reality.

3 or 4 years from now, if I still frequent this site, I fully expect the common topic of argument/discussion to be whether or not the shit is still Bush's fault and not Obama's.

Election of 2012 will be a tough one for Obama, I predict. Most of the campaign will be Obama trying to still blame everything on Bush policies while Republicans will point at Obama and say "see we told you so". Should be a doozy.

I'm just not sure I can stand another round of idiot American's believing their only viable solutions are these two defunct parties.[/QUOTE]


it was a local thing so it would not be on video.

im voting for that kitten they showed on adult swim : )

about the heatlh thing.. My agent told me if obama plans comes into effect, expect to see the bill DOUBLE next year

I still say it will wont be until Late Dec to we see who wins .... People will show up to vote even though they prevoted and Demand they never voted ... or people will filled in Pre votes for people when in truth they never did

Tuesday night is going to be fun LOL

also is there any laws that keeps the current prez from going nuts and #$#$#$# up so it screws over the new one

Like saying attacking russia and going HA HA : )
 
[quote name='SpazX']100% true. That article shows very well how much Obama hates babies and there's no justification for voting as he did.

I swear to god people get so fucking stupid when it comes to elections.[/QUOTE]

Shame on you. Stick to the facts: Obama attempted to stop a bill that would require medical care for children who survive abortions. Nobody said he "hates babies." I'm sure in his mind there was "justification" for his vote (bullshit rationalization, but justification in his mind).

No need to become an attack dog and ignore facts in favor of ad hominems. Obviously you can't come at the issue from any angle other than "the other side is unfairly attacking my Lord and Savior! Argh, I'm so ANGRY!" Please wake up and stop being a dick.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Shame on you. Stick to the facts: Obama attempted to stop a bill that would require medical care for children who survive abortions. Nobody said he "hates babies." I'm sure in his mind there was "justification" for his vote (bullshit rationalization, but justification in his mind).

No need to become an attack dog and ignore facts in favor of ad hominems. Obviously you can't come at the issue from any angle other than "the other side is unfairly attacking my Lord and Savior! Argh, I'm so ANGRY!" Please wake up and stop being a dick.[/QUOTE]

got to wonder how many of them really read what they vote on.. More like they got 1000s of workers telling them the basic outlines of what the vote is for.

i say both them both on monday night raw in a steel cage street fight : )
 
I just wonder what people are going to do if the Democrats drop the ball. I hope they don't, I don't give a damn who is in power if they do a good job, but it will be really interesting if nothing else.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Shame on you. Stick to the facts: Obama attempted to stop a bill that would require medical care for children who survive abortions. Nobody said he "hates babies." I'm sure in his mind there was "justification" for his vote (bullshit rationalization, but justification in his mind).

No need to become an attack dog and ignore facts in favor of ad hominems. Obviously you can't come at the issue from any angle other than "the other side is unfairly attacking my Lord and Savior! Argh, I'm so ANGRY!" Please wake up and stop being a dick.[/quote]



If you make a comment telling people to "decide for themselves", you should at least try and give the whole story. The article I found is pro-life biased but I think it describes enough of it. It has an exact quote from Obama (taken from the senate transcript) which is what people should use to "decide for themselves". No? Check the Spoiler to avoid the article and go right to Obama's statements.

http://politicalreason.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/barack-obama-baby-killer/


It is not as extreme as some make it out to be (and as the article implies). He also voted present, not yes or no. This bill did have problems in the courts as was predicted.

The following are the exact statements by Obama pertaining to the bill, as recorded in the senate transcript, pages 84-90, which you can read for yourself:

“Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is thatthere was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?”

“Well, it turned out – that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your – you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as – as if necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I – I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and – and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a – a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top