TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Vote Bush/Chenny 04!
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I'm actually for the electoral college since I'm a proponent of state rights, and smaller federal government. The fact of the matter is, is that a study of the electoral processes was conducted by a team of about 40 political scientists who could not reach a concensus on a better alternative. http://www.ur.ku.edu/News/02N/FebNews/Feb14/elect.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hey Dick, stay away from my beloved alma mater! Go find your quotes somewheres else now, ya hear? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider At any rate, I would have been all for a Florida recount IF a recount had been done in ALL states/counties where votes had been hotly contested, not just the 3 democrat counties in Florida ... sorry but that just doesn't cut the zionist mustard.  |
Very true.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Illusion I think the Serbs are still real pissed about the US attacks on Croatia so I'm betting on the right wing nazi guy. |
Unfortunately, I think George W will be reelected. I don't even think it will be close. He attracts the uneducated (because he speaks like they do), he attracts the Christian Right, he attracts gun lobbyists, big business/corporate America, and he has appealed to many middle class Americans with his tax cuts.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Umm, US attacked Croatia??? You don't say...I guess I've been sleeping under a rock for the last few years... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Yea, while everybody was distracted with Iraq (including you Croatians) we took the liberty of invading you guys ... hope it doesn't inconvenience you too much. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Unfortunately a popular vote would not be in the best interests of the country with the way it is set up. Remember we are a federalist union of states rather than one large single body of power. At the federal level, we are NOT a democracy, in order to avoid a tyranny of the majority, a republic was adopted. At the state level, we have 50 democracies with individual powers. As such, there are clear lines of distinction as to what powers are given to the state and what powers are given to the federal government. In certain areas, federal powers cannot overrun state laws ... the reason why you see marijuana being decriminalized in several states despite the federal government being opposed it. The way our government is set up, is that a big centralized government is bad, whereas smaller local governments within each state would be more apt to fulfill the needs of its citizens. Which would you rather have, washington dictating your lifestyle according to the needs of what people in the 49 others states want, or what you and the people in your state alone want? The idea is to limit the authority the federal government has over you and over the states ... checks and balances. That being said, each state is given electoral votes whose determination is determined by a popular votes of the states. Some smaller states are given a set number of electoral votes to give them a fair share in the determination of the leader of the union of states ... otherwise those states wouldn't have even opted to joint the union to begin with. If the nation were to cater to a popular vote, than that immediately disrupts the representation of all smaller states. All the power would immediately shift to the large population states ... namely California. In such a consolidation of power, what obligation would a presidential candidate have to fulfill the needs of ALL states (what the founding fathers intended) as opposed to the most populous states? Why not simply cater to the needs of California, Texas, the Northeast, and simply forget everyone else? In order to appease those states, attention will be given to the majority and since their needs are being met, they would continually draw from the populations of surrounding states whose needs are not being met. I'm actually for the electoral college since I'm a proponent of state rights, and smaller federal government. The fact of the matter is, is that a study of the electoral processes was conducted by a team of about 40 political scientists who could not reach a concensus on a better alternative. http://www.ur.ku.edu/News/02N/FebNews/Feb14/elect.html However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that there could be changes made to the electoral college. For one, I would advocate proportional allocation of electoral votes. Rather than the popular vote of the state capturing ALL the state's electoral vote it should get a proportional majority of the electoral votes. If you are a strong advocate of the popular vote, than you MUST be outraged at how in the 1960 election, Kennedy won through a clear majority of electoral votes (his 303 to Nixon's 219), while according to the popular vote Kennedy had received 49.7% as opposed to Nixon's 49.5%. Recount? At any rate, I would have been all for a Florida recount IF a recount had been done in ALL states/counties where votes had been hotly contested, not just the 3 democrat counties in Florida ... sorry but that just doesn't cut the zionist mustard. |
Yes...much too far away to decide, since the Dems don't have a candidate and they are too busy bashing each other right now. In fact that may hurt them since there are still 9(?) left and only a couple months before they have to become 1 (bionic candidate).
Basically, I think it will come down to how the economy is doing job wise. If the economy keeps going up and the job market begins to restructure...even though Bush really has nothing to do with it...that's how people relate to vote. It will be close, though, and there is a lot that can happen in 1 year, so I'll sit and watch.
I think if one of the dems goes out and does a porn video, they'd be a shoe in....sexual scandal seemed to work great for them in the past, and probably would work again, knowing how the american people love drama.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I will rise above the urge to use a racial term |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Vote Dennis Kucinich!!! Seriously though, I don't think the Clintons will let Dean win--it would make it too hard for Hillary to run in '08, which is why they've thrown so much support behind the puppet that is Wesley Clark. Sharpton? HAHHAHAHAHA!!! I will rise above the urge to use a racial term to describe that worthless POS. Lieberman? to much of a pussy, and unfortunately for him, he's Jewish, which turns a lot of people off (also unfortunate, but true). In all honesty, I'm not sure whether it's more difficult to be a Jewish nominee or a black nominee. Both are disadvantaged by race/ethnicity. Kerry? I don't know much about him other than I have to look the other way when he's on camera. He's like a medusa--I'm afraid I'll turn to stone if I look directly at him. Edwards? Seems like he's not vocal enough, and therefore just doesn't have the popularity to pull in enough support. I don't know much else about him other than he's from N.C. What other jokers are running? The way this could feasibly pan out is that a dark horse Democrat will win the nomination simply because the pack is too vast right now, and therefore the votes could be so fragmented that someone could win the nomination with 30% of the nominational vote. The dark horse candidate then may turn into a joke and Bush could win in a landslide, or he could lose. It is indeed to early to definitively know, though it's obvious that most people on this board don't like Bush for various reasons. He definitely has the upper hand, however. Democrats keep misstepping and losing little factions b/c they're too busy fighting with eachother. |
I don't think Bushie's support will be based on the economy, rather i think it will be based on his success in Iraq when election time rolls around
alot of Bush's support comes from people who either buy into his whole fear mongoring tactics and/or people who think what we are doing is good for iraq and that we are "spreading freedom" etc.
this encompases a large group of the population. *caugh*hicks*caugh* 
bush barely won the first election (its arguable if he even did), and with everything going on in iraq, he can either lose that important margin or gain it.
right now i hope the dems can get their shit in gear and will nominate Dean. i personally think wesley clark is a cock sucker, but he's got alot of support, and i agree with daveseanz that a Dean/Clark ballot could be be the strongest bet the Dems could get with Dean.
Originally posted by Shakka
Sharpton? HAHHAHAHAHA!!! I will rise above the urge to use a racial term to describe that worthless POS
----- I see your point in referring to Sharpton since he has been known to shoot off his mouth in a second on any subject, I enjoy him more for entertainment value than actual politics. could have swore I saw him on Hardball claiming that the U.S was denying independence to Puerto Rico, while he ignored all the referendums that Puerto Rico has undertaken and voted against to change their current status in relations with the U.S. Using a racial term however would be stooping to Sharpton's level, not worthwile.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by 'mju:zik racist people have urges to use racist terms. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by 'mju:zik just wanted to quote the whole post in case u decide to edit or delete it |
Bush is going to win..He's doing an excellent job...and he's made this country so much better.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.