I am not a democrat or a republican, but...
- Thread starter 9ringer
- Start date
- :
- 2002 BJFW, 2007 BK3P, 1979 SA22C, 2005 BK3P
no, you pwned yourself n00bmelicha8 said:
- :
- 2002 BJFW, 2007 BK3P, 1979 SA22C, 2005 BK3P
doesn't matter. it really doesn't matter who you vote for. the popular vote will have no bearing on the election, always has been and unless the system changes, the electoral college will always elect the president. according to recent polls, Bush leads by thirty votes in the electoral college IF the election were held today. we could all write in Donald Duck and the electors will pick the president, and the Electoral College CANNOT, they are legally RESTRICTED, from electing a candidate that is not of the Democratic or Republican parties. Unless the law changes and third parties can, and I mean realistically speaking, put themselves on the ballot, people like Nader will NEVER be elected president and you will never see a candidate from outside party lines run the country.Devman said:
i hate to burst the "i thought we were a democracy" rant, but the United States, by definition, is NOT a democracy. It is a Republic and has been since the Consitution was ratified into law. Democracy allows for more direct election of the leadership and far more control given to a legislative body, think ancient Greece and to some extent modern day England.
Neither Kerry or Bush has any idea how to solve the REAL problems facing this country. After listening to the debates I don't know that either of them really know what the hell needs to be done.
- :
- 2002 BJFW, 2007 BK3P, 1979 SA22C, 2005 BK3P
DSM2MSP said it up there just before Dexter's post (RTM)melicha8 said:
Nsfw
i think we all need a little bit of this kind of politics
NSFW: http://sublimedirectory.com/stimes/bush.wmv NSFW
i think we all need a little bit of this kind of politics
NSFW: http://sublimedirectory.com/stimes/bush.wmv NSFW
To correct the criticism of the Electoral College:
The Electoral College, by and large, is NOT restricted to voting for either a Dem or a Rep, but rather they are LEGALLY BOUND to vote for who the majority of their constituents voted for. There are a few states who do not have this law, but to the best of my recollection those states are not significant in their electoral votes or serious contention between the candidates to change the outcome.
The original intent of the Electoral College was honourable. Keep the stupid people from voting by having them elect someone they believed WAS informed on the issues enough to actually make an intelligent decision, which was where the Electors freedom to choose whom to vote for came from. I'd argue that such an idea is needed today, but that isn't the point here.
Point being that the Electoral College, for all it's bashing, was an extrordinarily good system 150 years ago. Now? Now it's rather antiquated and should have been dealt away with after 2000. 'Cept that it wasn't, and this election will be even closer than 2000, so we shall see how Bush finagles his way back into the White House.
Remember, kids; Bush won that election... 5-4.
Devman
The Electoral College, by and large, is NOT restricted to voting for either a Dem or a Rep, but rather they are LEGALLY BOUND to vote for who the majority of their constituents voted for. There are a few states who do not have this law, but to the best of my recollection those states are not significant in their electoral votes or serious contention between the candidates to change the outcome.
The original intent of the Electoral College was honourable. Keep the stupid people from voting by having them elect someone they believed WAS informed on the issues enough to actually make an intelligent decision, which was where the Electors freedom to choose whom to vote for came from. I'd argue that such an idea is needed today, but that isn't the point here.
Point being that the Electoral College, for all it's bashing, was an extrordinarily good system 150 years ago. Now? Now it's rather antiquated and should have been dealt away with after 2000. 'Cept that it wasn't, and this election will be even closer than 2000, so we shall see how Bush finagles his way back into the White House.
Remember, kids; Bush won that election... 5-4.
Devman
- :
- 2015 BMW 335i Sedan / 2015 Nissan Pathfinder Platinum 4WD
I'd vote for John McCain if he ran..he seems well balanced and doesn't have his head up his ass..
Puckpimp71
Member
- :
- 1991 Taurus SHO, 2003 Black Mazdaspeed Protege
yupyup... He seems to have his ducks in a row and pretty well liked by both parties... really not to sure what I'm talking about here, but that's the one guy I liked in the 2000 election.
ThrillRide
Member
- :
- Truck
what a freaking noob! why listen to the media anyway. all the media does is spin things the way they want it (the way that makes them the most money)
hey here is a good point. if for some crazy reason kerry is elected and for some crazy reason he could not finish his scentence/term we would be stuck with his goob VP. can you imagine Edwards trying to run our country?! holy hell i would run for the hills. that alone is enough reason not to vote for kerry.
ThrillRide
Member
- :
- Truck
^^ you're funny. at least cheney know what he is doing. edwards is a bumpking trial lawyer with jack crap for experience and knowledge. he is a political light weight. he was chosen as running mate because he can pull a lot of popularity votes. i am not a cheney fan. i wish lieberman was bush's vp. but edwards is just a joke.
TX Speed Demon
Member
ThrillRide said:
Matt, you really need to watch Fareinhiet 911. Don't take it all as truth, but don't take it all as Michael Moore's BS.
Do some research on how involved the Bin Laden family is in our economy (chances are they own the companies that put your credit cards in your wallet), then research how financially envolved both Bush and Cheney are with the Bin Ladens both in a governmental sence and in a personal wealth sense. If you take the time to research the facts, I think you'll find it surprising how much financial gain Bush, Cheney and the Bin Laden family recieved from our war with Iraq.
It may not change your opinion as to who is the best candidate, but it will certainly make you wonder wether the choices that were made really benefit our country, or the select few who run it.
After watching the movie, and conducting some research on my own, having an unexperienced Vice president (edwards) assume power if needed doesn't seem too bad. I feel like due to his lack of long time government experience it's possible he will make the honest decision, rather than bow to the pressure he has recived from financial backers over the last 30 years.
Also, Edwards may look young, but he is currently older (51) than JFK was when he was elected President (44). Not saying he is the same man and deserves the same respect as JFK, but it's food for thought and a good reason not to judge a man on his smile and hairline.
To me, Edwards seems like a good guy (although very politically unexperienced), while Cheney seems like a good (although very ruthless) business man. I'm just tired of our country being run like a business where money is the bottom line.
I make enough money to live comfortably, but I also see places (like the school where my wife works) where kids grow up without toilet paper, soap, clean clothes, school supplies or even enough books for each student. I don't mind giving up a little of my money to help someone else have a chance to achive what I have. I feel that Bush has had the chance to make some changes, but has neglected to do so. Take his "No kid left behind" policy. With all the funding he cut from it, it's obvious it was simply a tool to get votes, not a real tool to help the future generation.
While Bush supposedly "stands behind his beliefs", the only time I see that happening is in regards to the war in Iraq. And low and behold, while that war may have been necessary or the right thing to do, it also has made the Bush family several million dollars. Not saying that's why he has done it, but it makes me wonder. Now when it comes to a policy that benefits the majority of American citizens, he too flip flops on his intial promises.
I'm just ready to give someone else the same chance Bush got 4 years ago.
[threadjack]
On a personal note, how was the cruise?
[/threadjack]
Last edited:
ThrillRide
Member
- :
- Truck
J, I know our pres made some bad choices. but most of them have. it is how they responde that i am concerned about. i really dont want to see f911. i dont want any part of it. i think that it is treason. f911 would not change my opinion. i have read the 911 commision and that is good enough for me.
i know edwards is not a youngster, i wasnt refering to his age, but i do belive that he is a political light weight and not ready for the white house.i think you might agree tho that our media can be very biased at times when it means ratings/$$ for them weather it be from demo or repub sides. our media is one large sandbox....hmmm sort of like our presidential debates.
[threadjack]
ports of call were awesome....the boat kinda sucked, pretty disapointed
[/threadjack]
[threadjack]
hows the highboost? running good?
[/threadjack]
i know edwards is not a youngster, i wasnt refering to his age, but i do belive that he is a political light weight and not ready for the white house.i think you might agree tho that our media can be very biased at times when it means ratings/$$ for them weather it be from demo or repub sides. our media is one large sandbox....hmmm sort of like our presidential debates.
[threadjack]
ports of call were awesome....the boat kinda sucked, pretty disapointed
[/threadjack]
[threadjack]
hows the highboost? running good?
[/threadjack]
TX Speed Demon
Member
Come on man, it's a movie, not treason. And Moore never says anything horrible or untrue (to my knowledge) about bush. Not very much of it is about 9/11 or what lead up to it, most of it is about what happened after 9/11. It may not change your opinion as to who should be president, but having all the facts may change your opinion of the man himself.
I agree with you about Edwards experience level, I think there were probably some better choices out there. But like I said, in my opinion a lack of experience isn't necessarily a bad thing.
You may have forgotten, but Bush only had 6 years of governmental experience before taking office as President of the US in 2000 (before being elected governor of Texas in 94, Bush was manager of the Texas Rangers baseball team) and Edwards has 6 years of governmental experience allready. So actually, he currently has the same level of experience (although as a senator not a governor) as Bush did when he was elected president.
I do agree with you about the media though. Both sides constantly twist it to their favor. That's something we will never get around as long as television is our main source of identifing with the candidates. We just have to take the time to research on our own before we make any decisions we believe are informed ones.
[threadjack]
Hiboost is running great. Got the Perrin SRI in last weekend and now the car sounds like a Mac truck spooling up
Still having slight difficulties with the greddy, it's dipping but not stalling. i think I just need to give the ecu more time since I've be recirculating the last 4-5 mnths. But i might just recirc the greddy and not worry about it. If you make it out tomorrow night you can check it out.
[/threadjack]
I agree with you about Edwards experience level, I think there were probably some better choices out there. But like I said, in my opinion a lack of experience isn't necessarily a bad thing.
You may have forgotten, but Bush only had 6 years of governmental experience before taking office as President of the US in 2000 (before being elected governor of Texas in 94, Bush was manager of the Texas Rangers baseball team) and Edwards has 6 years of governmental experience allready. So actually, he currently has the same level of experience (although as a senator not a governor) as Bush did when he was elected president.
I do agree with you about the media though. Both sides constantly twist it to their favor. That's something we will never get around as long as television is our main source of identifing with the candidates. We just have to take the time to research on our own before we make any decisions we believe are informed ones.
[threadjack]
Hiboost is running great. Got the Perrin SRI in last weekend and now the car sounds like a Mac truck spooling up
Still having slight difficulties with the greddy, it's dipping but not stalling. i think I just need to give the ecu more time since I've be recirculating the last 4-5 mnths. But i might just recirc the greddy and not worry about it. If you make it out tomorrow night you can check it out.[/threadjack]
Last edited:
eting_pro5
Member
- :
- '03 Pro5
Anyone with a legitimate education knows the US is a republican democracy (or representative democracy). A true democracy is pretty unfeasible. Almost half of eligible Americans didn't vote in the 2000 election. If people won't elect their President and representatives, why would they want to participate in what is now their representatives job.Captain KRM P5 said:
Anyways, why the hell does the original thread compare Clinton and Bush as a reason Kerry shouldn't be elected? If "Clinton committed a felony in office" (which i'm pretty sure isn't true) I definitely wouldn't vote for Kerry, because it means he'll follow suit and committ crimes.
Lamest thread topic ever. Good thing it's morphed into legitimate politics so we can bicker all day.
