|
|
Post by silversno on Sept 26, 2004 9:58:25 GMT -5
I say Bush.
I just CANT STAND Flipflopers like Kerry.
Its VIVID proof that he is, okay?
And as for all the medicare stuff, i'm not really looking at that.
Look at this, If the The new Presiddent were killed, The Vice would go up, right? So. You want EDWARDS running our COUNTRY? No.
And Also, I kinda MET bush, lol. In a Childrens Congress Meeting. ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Sept 26, 2004 12:34:40 GMT -5
I say Bush. I just CANT STAND Flipflopers like Kerry. Its VIVID proof that he is, okay? And as for all the medicare stuff, i'm not really looking at that. Look at this, If the The new Presiddent were killed, The Vice would go up, right? So. You want EDWARDS running our COUNTRY? No. And Also, I kinda MET bush, lol. In a Childrens Congress Meeting. ^^ If Kerry's elected, he'll have to make up his mind on something. You can't really know a president from what he says he'll do. You know a president from what you know he does in office. And apparantly instead of willing to take a chance on Kerry, you're willing to vote for someone who has turned a national surplus into a deficit, given the wealthiest 1% of America a huge tax cut by 2010, put us into a war that has no visible end and not turned up any weapons of mass destruction, let religion influence his policies (i.e. gay marriage), gotten into Yale simply because Daddy was an alumni (and then he earned a C average), been arrested (1967) for drunk driving after driving into a hedge, has mangled the English language, and possibly even smoked cocaine. But Kerry is much, much worse, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 26, 2004 12:48:13 GMT -5
If Kerry's elected, he'll have to make up his mind on something. You can't really know a president from what he says he'll do. You know a president from what you know he does in office. And apparantly instead of willing to take a chance on Kerry, you're willing to vote for someone who has turned a national surplus into a deficit, given the wealthiest 1% of America a huge tax cut by 2010, put us into a war that has no visible end and not turned up any weapons of mass destruction, let religion influence his policies (i.e. gay marriage), gotten into Yale simply because Daddy was an alumni (and then he earned a C average), been arrested (1967) for drunk driving after driving into a hedge, has mangled the English language, and possibly even smoked cocaine. But Kerry is much, much worse, right? Hehe. That is so stupid. "We'll vote Kerry and he'll have to make up his mind on SOMETHING." Honestly, that is a lame reason to vote for him. Okay. So let's see here. Bush is human? We're voting for a human being? Wow. By the way, even with those tax cuts, that 1% still supplies the government with more than half of the income. So tough it up and stop whining that the rich are getting a small break on taxes. And by the way, I'm VERY sure that when Clinton left office we were in debt. In fact, we've pretty much always been in debt. At least he's actually doing stuff with this money, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Tahu on Sept 26, 2004 12:48:57 GMT -5
I would never, ever vote for Bush. Simply put, I beilive he is a bona-fide moron. Sorry to be harsh, but he truly is. Take this quote for instance: I've got the greatest idea of how to raise money for the campaign. Have your mother send a letter to your family's Christmas-card list. I just did, and I got $350,000! -- At "candidate's school" in 1978 set up by the Republican Party, where Dubya offered sterling advice that all of us could undoubtedly use to run for office I found this at the website www.dubyaspeak.com. They have over 2300 more gems like this one... Now, I would never vote for Kerry either. He is a flip-flopper. Even if I agree with him on many issues today, I don't know if I will tommarow. So, the choice is quite obvious. Vote Nader! |
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Sept 26, 2004 13:22:38 GMT -5
Hehe. That is so stupid. "We'll vote Kerry and he'll have to make up his mind on SOMETHING." Honestly, that is a lame reason to vote for him. That's not the reason to vote for him. But the probability of him not making his mind in office is very low, considering you actually have to do something in office. Okay. So let's see here. Bush is human? We're voting for a human being? Wow. I guess Bush is the most human president we've got. He's the only president ever to be arrested. By the way, even with those tax cuts, that 1% still supplies the government with more than half of the income. So tough it up and stop whining that the rich are getting a small break on taxes. How small is small? By 2010 the average earner in the top 1% will save 342,000 in taxes. Who's going to pay for that? The rest of us. And what about all the times Bush said,"By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom?" and any variations thereof? And by the way, I'm VERY sure that when Clinton left office we were in debt. In fact, we've pretty much always been in debt. At least he's actually doing stuff with this money, though. Okay, what I said wasn't completely accurate. Clinton announced a plan in 1999 that would erase the antional debt by 2015 if followed. In fact, that same year we had a budget surplus ($99 billion). An even larger one was projected for 2000 ($142 billion). From Bush? Nada. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Sept 27, 2004 12:38:18 GMT -5
Well, of course not. But we have a heck of a lot more say in the electoral college than we do the popular vote. As I said before, would the president really care about my vote? There are precious few people here compared to everywhere else. Even if I'm undecided, I doubt a president would care about a few undecided voters living up in Maine when there are a lot of undecided voters elsewhere in New York. And he will want to appeal to New York more than to Maine - because, obviously, there are more people there to vote for him. Nothing to do with state - just with the way the PEOPLE are and the POPULATION. I will be overlooked and, in general, uncared for. If the votes of my people don't matter, there is no reason, unless the candidate happens to be a person who (heaven forbid) actually CARES about the country and EVERYONE in it, for him to care about me and my protection. Which could lead to problems. Yes, that's in part what Congress is for - to keep the president in check. But the president is, you have to admit, a large part of the government. Even though Congress keeps him in check, the president also keeps Congress in check. Yes, the state IS important. Maine values ARE, in general, different than New York values simply because of the differences in industry and other things. So if Maine generally votes a certain way, it's for a reason. Not everything rests on Congress's shoulders, and the way a MINORITY of people feels should count SOMETHING so that their opinion will at least be taken into account and cared about and have SOME attention paid to it even though it can't sway an entire election. But you see, he doesn't really care as it is, because there are only two electoral votes. You see, since electorals are based on population anyway, the state's power wouldn't change for better OR worse. The only difference is that individuals have a little bit more power. |
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Sept 27, 2004 15:28:27 GMT -5
But you see, he doesn't really care as it is, because there are only two electoral votes. You see, since electorals are based on population anyway, the state's power wouldn't change for better OR worse. The only difference is that individuals have a little bit more power. Exactly. Individuals have more power. Not much, but more. |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Sept 28, 2004 17:00:22 GMT -5
Gawd, I can't stand politics. -.-; I don't think I'll vote...not that I think I'll be old enough. Bush is a nitwit, but he's got some leadership skills. Kerry is a flip-flopper and his wife would be a horrible First Lady, but he's going to fight for money towards Education (Which really need right now). I'm just going to move...Maybe to New Zealand or Australia.  |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Sept 28, 2004 22:51:59 GMT -5
Well, of course not. But we have a heck of a lot more say in the electoral college than we do the popular vote. As I said before, would the president really care about my vote? There are precious few people here compared to everywhere else. Even if I'm undecided, I doubt a president would care about a few undecided voters living up in Maine when there are a lot of undecided voters elsewhere in New York. And he will want to appeal to New York more than to Maine - because, obviously, there are more people there to vote for him. Nothing to do with state - just with the way the PEOPLE are and the POPULATION. I will be overlooked and, in general, uncared for. If the votes of my people don't matter, there is no reason, unless the candidate happens to be a person who (heaven forbid) actually CARES about the country and EVERYONE in it, for him to care about me and my protection. Which could lead to problems. Okay, I still don't see where you're coming from with this. Electoral votes are EXACTLY PROPORTIONATE. If the president-to-be doesn't think that there are enough people in your state to make appealing to them worthwhile, then he doesn't think that there are enough electoral votes for your state to make appealing to it worthwhile. It's the same thing. Doesn't change. I seriously doubt any of the presidents care about Maine as it is, even if it's undecided, because there are only two electoral votes, and in the long run, they don't make much of a difference. And popular vote WOULD make the minority's voices count for SOMETHING. Because asz it is, if you're in the minority in your STATE, your vote WILL NOT COUNT AT ALL. As in, it won't even BE counted towards the final results. No more or less than I want Cheney doing so. I try not to take a politician's political life into the picture, but the fact is that if a man supports canned hunting, he's not going to have a stance I find even reasonable on hardly any issues. EDIT: Oops. I didn't see your last post and lost track of which one's I've commented on. But I don't understand. If you agree that individuals have more power with the popular vote, why do you think we should keep the electoral college? |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Sept 29, 2004 14:42:34 GMT -5
Gawd, I can't stand politics. -.-; I don't think I'll vote...not that I think I'll be old enough. Bush is a nitwit, but he's got some leadership skills. Kerry is a flip-flopper and his wife would be a horrible First Lady, but he's going to fight for money towards Education (Which really need right now). Similar to what I think. I dislike both Bush and Kerry. I think Kerry doesn't show strong enough leadership skills and decisiveness and Bush is weak too :/ In England, we don't really get the choice. The Conservative leader is worse than useless, and shows weak leadership skills. Blair (Current Prime Minister, Labour party leader) shows strong leadership skills, but is under a lot of stress and made some bad decisions (plus there's a lot of political correctness and BS about) and the Liberal Party leader has few clear policies and is a supposed alcoholic. Not that I'm old enough to vote yet, but I'd like to have a decent choice. In fact, most current polls show people dislike Blair, but would rather have him than the Conservative leader. Hmm, it would be quite interesting to be a good MP... The hours are far too long though. |
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 29, 2004 14:53:03 GMT -5
Similar to what I think. I dislike both Bush and Kerry. I think Kerry doesn't show strong enough leadership skills and decisiveness and Bush is weak too :/ In England, we don't really get the choice. The Conservative leader is worse than useless, and shows weak leadership skills. Blair (Current Prime Minister, Labour party leader) shows strong leadership skills, but is under a lot of stress and made some bad decisions (plus there's a lot of political correctness and BS about) and the Liberal Party leader has few clear policies and is a supposed alcoholic. Not that I'm old enough to vote yet, but I'd like to have a decent choice. In fact, most current polls show people dislike Blair, but would rather have him than the Conservative leader. Hmm, it would be quite interesting to be a good MP... The hours are far too long though. Can you imagine Michael bloody Howard being the PM, it would be awful. There is a possibility that I will be old enough to vote in the next General Election. I suppose I would vote for the Lib Dems even if they have little chance. As long as the Conservartives didn't get in then I wouldn't be that bothered. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Sept 30, 2004 23:36:16 GMT -5
Sol, i've been thinking a lot about the whole elctoral college, since it seems that we had a miscommunication somewhere, and here's what I came up with.
Maybe the president DOESN'T care about the small and therefor "insignificant" population percentage of Maine. But if that's the case, he cares equally little about the the equally small and therfor equally "insignificant" electoral college of Maine.
The fact is, that under the population vote system, a single vote from a Mainer would be equal to a single vote from a Texan - they're both worth exactly one point. How it is now, a single vote from a Mainer is worth less because at the very most it'll be worth two points whereas a Texan vote at the most will be worth 13 (I think). Of course, assuming that everybody in Maine voted for one person and everyone in Texas voted for the other, the Texans votes would, when totalled, be worth more than the Maine votes totalled. BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS NOW. 2<13.
You want your vote to be counted. Since your views seem consistent with those of your state, it will be under either system. But I want MY vote to be counted too, which it won't be under the electoral college system because I am a liberal in a state of conservatives. At the end of the day, when the Arizona votes are tallied up, even if fourty percent of the voters went liberal (which is a best-case scenario for the liberals in this state) 100% of the five electoral points will be awarded to the conservative candidate.
Maybe the candidates don't care very much about either side of the voting in Maine, but they're still a consideration, albeit a minor one, as long as they're a swing state. But no one, absolutely NO ONE cares even the SLIGHTEST bit about the liberals in Texas, or the conservatives in Massachusetts. Because at the end of the day, their votes will simply be thrown out, like they had never even bothered to go to the polls.
|
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Oct 1, 2004 17:41:47 GMT -5
Sol, i've been thinking a lot about the whole elctoral college, since it seems that we had a miscommunication somewhere, and here's what I came up with. Maybe the president DOESN'T care about the small and therefor "insignificant" population percentage of Maine. But if that's the case, he cares equally little about the the equally small and therfor equally "insignificant" electoral college of Maine. The fact is, that under the population vote system, a single vote from a Mainer would be equal to a single vote from a Texan - they're both worth exactly one point. How it is now, a single vote from a Mainer is worth less because at the very most it'll be worth two points whereas a Texan vote at the most will be worth 13 (I think). Of course, assuming that everybody in Maine voted for one person and everyone in Texas voted for the other, the Texans votes would, when totalled, be worth more than the Maine votes totalled. BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS NOW. 2<13. You want your vote to be counted. Since your views seem consistent with those of your state, it will be under either system. But I want MY vote to be counted too, which it won't be under the electoral college system because I am a liberal in a state of conservatives. At the end of the day, when the Arizona votes are tallied up, even if fourty percent of the voters went liberal (which is a best-case scenario for the liberals in this state) 100% of the five electoral points will be awarded to the conservative candidate. Maybe the candidates don't care very much about either side of the voting in Maine, but they're still a consideration, albeit a minor one, as long as they're a swing state. But no one, absolutely NO ONE cares even the SLIGHTEST bit about the liberals in Texas, or the conservatives in Massachusetts. Because at the end of the day, their votes will simply be thrown out, like they had never even bothered to go to the polls. But I think you'd agree if I said that the likelihood of a candidate winning by one Maine electoral vote is much higher than the chance of a candidate winning by one hundred Maine popular votes. And actually - I'm a republican in a state of democrats (and about one of three conservatives in my high school). And the electoral college system is far from perfect. I think it makes sense for each state to have something of the system that Maine and Nebraska have - the two electoral votes - and then one electoral vote for each district. I think that may be a pretty good balance between the voice of minorities in states (conservatives in a liberal state and vice versa) and the voice of minorities in the country (the fishermen I rambled on about earlier). But I've had fun debating this and I think I'll step out now. I really don't know exactly what I think and started the debate merely because I thought that TAA was being a little cocky stating an opinion as a fact.  I'm not saying this as a cop-out - I honestly don't know what I think and wanted a little bit of a challenge. But I think it's time that the thread reverted back to its original topic.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Oct 3, 2004 20:35:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Oct 3, 2004 20:41:47 GMT -5
Let me put things this way:
Which is better, a guy that doesn't know what he wants to say, or a guy that doesn't know what he wants to do?
Obviously the first one, a few mispronounced words wont make another World War.
Which is better, a VP that's experienced, or a young moron?
Obviously the first!!
Which is better, a guy that we can laugh at or a guy that's all serious and STILL DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE WANTS TO DO?
And, obviously the first one.
|
|
