IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The U.S. Empire Is Falling!, Ain't It Sweet?
Guest_Some Guy_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:24 PM
Post #61





Guests






I hear it. And I still wonder if he has read theConstitution and has any idea as to how Presidents are elected in the United States of America? Apparently not considering his stance on this issue.

Whoever has the majority of the popular vote doesn't matter! All that matters is who has the most Electoral College votes.
You can argue whether or not the system should be changed all you want and maybe it should be, but in America we have a prohibiton on Ex Post Facto laws, that keep us from retroactivley changing the law to suit our fancy. Gore still lost the fucking election, enough of this shit already!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Ozymandias_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:28 PM
Post #62





Guests






Yes, the electoral votes go to whoever wins each state. Bush didn't win Florida, hence he LOST THE ELECTION. You're the one who is talking about the popular vote, not I. I've been referring to the electoral vote all along.


Kingpk: Did you say something? Sorry, I was busy staring at your FANTABULOUS choice of a sig banner. Keep up the excellent work. (IMG:http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) B)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Some Guy_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:34 PM
Post #63





Guests






Bush did win Florida. What vote count did you look at? Certainly not a legit one. The NY Times and several other Leftist papers did recounts of the whole state and all came up with Bush as the winner. Just give it up, you lose on this argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Ozymandias_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:38 PM
Post #64





Guests






I didn't get to look at any legit vote count, because they weren't all counted. That's reality and you can't just wish it away because you prefer Bush.
The newspapers did fucking polls, that's not the same as a recount. According to polls Dewey defeated Truman.
Give it up, Bush lost and even he knows it. No candidate who won would have any reason to prevent a full, thorough recount from occuring.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_J*ingus_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:40 PM
Post #65





Guests






QUOTE(Kingpk @ Sep 4 2002, 09:23 PM)
Well if Gore won his OWN FUCKING STATE none of this would have happened.

Gore was doomed to lose Tennessee no matter what, and everyone here knew it. TN has become an even more heavily conservative place over the past decade, and there was no way in hell that a Democrat, no matter who it was, would've taken the state.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_J*ingus_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:41 PM
Post #66





Guests






And Cletus: EVERY count that DID happen came out with Bush as the winner. NONE of them came out in Gore's favor. And I'm speaking as a Gore supporter here, but let's face it, the man did lose the election according to the rules.

Now, the rules themselves might be less than fair, but that's a whole separate debate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_danielisthor_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:42 PM
Post #67





Guests






QUOTE(Kingpk @ Sep 4 2002, 08:23 PM)
Well if Gore won his OWN FUCKING STATE none of this would have happened.

Hell, even Dukakis won Massachusetts.

Very good point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Some Guy_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:43 PM
Post #68





Guests






QUOTE(Cletus The Bloody @ Sep 4 2002, 10:38 PM)
I didn't get to look at any legit vote count, because they weren't all counted. That's reality and you can't just wish it away because you prefer Bush.
The newspapers did fucking polls, that's not the same as a recount. According to polls Dewey defeated Truman.
Give it up, Bush lost and even he knows it. No candidate who won would have any reason to prevent a full, thorough recount from occuring.

They did recounts as far as i know and they said. So I guess I'm misinformed and the papers lied.

BTW Gore won DC, so he really did win his "home state." He doesn't give a shit about Tennessee and basically hasn't lived there for years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_danielisthor_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:52 PM
Post #69





Guests






QUOTE(Jingus @ Sep 4 2002, 08:41 PM)
And Cletus: EVERY count that DID happen came out with Bush as the winner. NONE of them came out in Gore's favor. And I'm speaking as a Gore supporter here, but let's face it, the man did lose the election according to the rules.

Now, the rules themselves might be less than fair, but that's a whole separate debate.

The reason there is an electorial college is to make the election fair. Consider the states that Gore won. California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusettes ( i know he won others as well.) Basically Gore won the entire west coast and the North East. Those two regions alone have enough registered voters to win an election if every single person had voted. The reason there is an electorial college is so that the votes in states that are less populated, like Alaska, is so their votes actually count and matter. Land mass wise, Bush kicked the living snot out of Gore, yet Gore won the "liberal" states. The problem is, he couldn't sway any of the "conservative" states to his side. For all intent purposes, Florida is a liberal state. What killed Gore in Florida, and i will tell you flat out being a Floridian is the whole Elian Gonzales episode. If Clinton/Gore/Reno would of kept that child in the US, they would of gotten a HUGE number of the Cuban vote. Enough to sway the entire state over to Gore and he would be sitting in the White House right now, taxing us to death and finding ways of taking our combustable engine vehicles away from us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Cancer Marney_*
post Sep 4 2002, 08:54 PM
Post #70





Guests






That's the nice thing about liberals. They don't just shoot themselves in the foot, they blow off the whole damn leg.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Some Guy_*
post Sep 4 2002, 09:06 PM
Post #71





Guests






QUOTE(Jingus @ Sep 4 2002, 10:41 PM)
And Cletus: EVERY count that DID happen came out with Bush as the winner. NONE of them came out in Gore's favor. And I'm speaking as a Gore supporter here, but let's face it, the man did lose the election according to the rules.

Now, the rules themselves might be less than fair, but that's a whole separate debate.

And that my friends is why Jingus is a Mod. Objectivity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Ozymandias_*
post Sep 5 2002, 02:28 AM
Post #72





Guests






I'm plenty objective. I despise Al Gore and spent my precious time voting against him in both the primary and general elections. To put it VERY mildly, the idea of him in the White House doesn't exactly give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

But, fair is fair, and Bush didn't win in Florida. All the recounts that Gore lost were only representative of specific counties and not the state of Florida itself. You can't assume that Gore lost the whole state based on the VERY small percentage of votes that were recounted. That'd be like saying that since Gore won the U.S. Northeast and California that he must have won the whole country. It doesn't work that way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Agent of Oblivion_*
post Sep 5 2002, 05:44 AM
Post #73





Guests






QUOTE(danielisthor @ Sep 4 2002, 08:52 PM)
The reason there is an electorial college is to make the election fair.

In my opinion, it does the opposite. The popular vote should be the one that matters. X number of people voted for this candidate. Well, this candidate got X+Y number of votes. Candidate 2 got more, so he shoul win. Simple math.

They've got all the pieces in place, districts divided up, makes for easy counting. No one's vote is worth more than another person's, so just fuckin' tally 'em up and whoever gets the most, wins.

The electoral college is a clown college that complicates things more than they should be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_MR. COOLING_*
post Sep 5 2002, 06:38 AM
Post #74





Guests






<Andrew Marr, a respected British political commentator (and certainly no left-winger)>

YEAAAH RIGHT!!! That guy (who I like and respect in both his print and TV work) is as leftwing as hell.

W.W.I Coolingt
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_danielisthor_*
post Sep 5 2002, 07:15 AM
Post #75





Guests






QUOTE(Cletus The Bloody @ Sep 5 2002, 02:28 AM)
I'm plenty objective. I despise Al Gore and spent my precious time voting against him in both the primary and general elections. To put it VERY mildly, the idea of him in the White House doesn't exactly give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

But, fair is fair, and Bush didn't win in Florida. All the recounts that Gore lost were only representative of specific counties and not the state of Florida itself. You can't assume that Gore lost the whole state based on the VERY small percentage of votes that were recounted. That'd be like saying that since Gore won the U.S. Northeast and California that he must have won the whole country. It doesn't work that way.

What part of a complete and total recount do you not understand. There was a complete recount of every single district in every single county in the State of Florida conducted by the NY Times and the Miami Herald using the Freedom of Information Act. Not just Dade and Palm Beach county. Every County. All 68 Counties. From the Panhandle to the Keys, from St. Petersburgh to Miami to Jacksonville, to Tallahassee. All of them were recounted. Every single one of them. Not a poll. every single vote. chads and all. BUSH WON. get over it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_MD2020_*
post Sep 5 2002, 07:17 AM
Post #76





Guests






QUOTE
In my opinion, it does the opposite. The popular vote should be the one that matters. X number of people voted for this candidate. Well, this candidate got X+Y number of votes. Candidate 2 got more, so he shoul win. Simple math.

They've got all the pieces in place, districts divided up, makes for easy counting. No one's vote is worth more than another person's, so just fuckin' tally 'em up and whoever gets the most, wins.

The electoral college is a clown college that complicates things more than they should be.


Well, if you feel that way, petition your member of Congress to draft an amendment to the Constitution. Of course, since your scenario would make about 20 or so States useless when it comes to voting in presidential elections, good luck getting 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Agent of Oblivion_*
post Sep 5 2002, 07:37 AM
Post #77





Guests






QUOTE(MD2020 @ Sep 5 2002, 07:17 AM)
Well, if you feel that way, petition your member of Congress to draft an amendment to the Constitution. Of course, since your scenario would make about 20 or so States useless when it comes to voting in presidential elections, good luck getting 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it.

The thing is, I don't think it should matter who a certain STATE votes for, it should matter who the people vote for. Alaska and Wyoming don't really matter much in either scenario.

I don't see the problem with the idea that whoever gets the most votes should be president.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_danielisthor_*
post Sep 5 2002, 07:53 AM
Post #78





Guests






QUOTE(Agent of Oblivion @ Sep 5 2002, 07:37 AM)
QUOTE(MD2020 @ Sep 5 2002, 07:17 AM)


Well, if you feel that way, petition your member of Congress to draft an amendment to the Constitution.  Of course, since your scenario would make about 20 or so States useless when it comes to voting in presidential elections, good luck getting 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it.

The thing is, I don't think it should matter who a certain STATE votes for, it should matter who the people vote for. Alaska and Wyoming don't really matter much in either scenario.

I don't see the problem with the idea that whoever gets the most votes should be president.

In that same sense then you are stating that the votes from Congressmen and woman and Senators from Alaska and Wyoming don't matter either. In that sense, what is stopping the congressmen and women from New York and California from passing a law implementing that the states with lesser population to pay higher taxes and not their own constituents, because their vote(and i mean the congressional members from Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, etc. etc.) doesn't really matter in the big picture. Might makes Right?

Actually, i think truthfully, forcing the entire nation to vote on one day, is a tad extreme. A small part of the problem in Florida, was the Panhandle, that is a hour behind and was getting news reports from tv and radio that Gore had already won the state, so they didn't bother to vote. I feel that there should be at least 2 or 3 days to vote. No district should be allowed to disclose results until the following week when absentee ballots and the military vote is accounted for and tallied. But thats just me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Agent of Oblivion_*
post Sep 5 2002, 08:32 AM
Post #79





Guests






QUOTE(danielisthor @ Sep 5 2002, 07:53 AM)
QUOTE(Agent of Oblivion @ Sep 5 2002, 07:37 AM)
QUOTE(MD2020 @ Sep 5 2002, 07:17 AM)


Well, if you feel that way, petition your member of Congress to draft an amendment to the Constitution.  Of course, since your scenario would make about 20 or so States useless when it comes to voting in presidential elections, good luck getting 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it.

The thing is, I don't think it should matter who a certain STATE votes for, it should matter who the people vote for. Alaska and Wyoming don't really matter much in either scenario.

I don't see the problem with the idea that whoever gets the most votes should be president.

In that same sense then you are stating that the votes from Congressmen and woman and Senators from Alaska and Wyoming don't matter either. In that sense, what is stopping the congressmen and women from New York and California from passing a law implementing that the states with lesser population to pay higher taxes and not their own constituents, because their vote(and i mean the congressional members from Alaska, Wyoming, Rhode Island, etc. etc.) doesn't really matter in the big picture. Might makes Right?

Not at all. Every State has 2 Senators because of that very fact. It protects the lesser populated states, and puts them at the same level as everyone else. Then you have the reps which go by the opposite, and more fairly represent the states with larger populations.

Does California's opinion matter more than say, Georgia's, when it comes to choosing a leader of the nation? i don't think it should, the people of the nation should choose the leader, cut out the middleman, factory direct right to you.

I also agree there should be another day or so to vote.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Spaceman Spiff_*
post Sep 5 2002, 08:33 AM
Post #80





Guests






QUOTE(Cletus The Bloody @ Sep 4 2002, 10:11 PM)
I just wanted the person who the people actually elected (ya' know,...democracy?) to get the Presidency.

You *are* aware we really don't live in a democracy (well, not a true democracy, anyway)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_big Dante Cruz_*
post Sep 5 2002, 01:56 PM
Post #81





Guests






I hope you aren't going to refer to Athens as a true democracy. They'd only beat people to get them to the Acropolis for meetings.

Some people don't vote because they don't like the candidates or the issues on the table and exersize their right to stay out. Some are just plain lazy and those people don't have the right to complain about government, seeing as how they didn't take the opportunity to take a part in it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Invader3k_*
post Sep 5 2002, 02:31 PM
Post #82





Guests






"You *are* aware we really don't live in a democracy (well, not a true democracy, anyway)? "

Oh, some idiot always brings this up. Yes, we all know that technically in a "true democracy" everyone votes on everything. This would be obviously impossible in a nation with 285 million people, so we use REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY! Oh my god! It's not real democracy! We are ruled by a facist regime! Run for the hills...

Get off your high horse and get with the real world, please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Ram_*
post Sep 5 2002, 02:43 PM
Post #83





Guests






QUOTE(Jingus @ Sep 5 2002, 02:40 AM)
QUOTE(Kingpk @ Sep 4 2002, 09:23 PM)
Well if Gore won his OWN FUCKING STATE none of this would have happened.

Gore was doomed to lose Tennessee no matter what, and everyone here knew it. TN has become an even more heavily conservative place over the past decade, and there was no way in hell that a Democrat, no matter who it was, would've taken the state.

Even though, you know, we (as in TN) voted for Clinton for both terms.

I hate Gore more than I do Bush, and Nader was given the cold shoulder by the media. So I went with the lesser evil of the two more likely winners, and that ain't Gore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Ram_*
post Sep 5 2002, 02:44 PM
Post #84





Guests






QUOTE(Spaceman Spiff @ Sep 5 2002, 02:33 PM)
QUOTE(Cletus The Bloody @ Sep 4 2002, 10:11 PM)
I just wanted the person who the people actually elected (ya' know,...democracy?) to get the Presidency.

You *are* aware we really don't live in a democracy (well, not a true democracy, anyway)?

The only *TRUE* democracies are in small towns where instead of a mayor and such they have town meetings with the 30 or so citizens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_bob_barron_*
post Sep 5 2002, 02:44 PM
Post #85





Guests






Gore losing Tennessee was just sad.

Do you guys think Gore would've won had he campaigned with Clinton?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_EricMM_*
post Sep 5 2002, 03:10 PM
Post #86





Guests






Actually if you think about it, your local city government is pretty much a democracy that involves you. I mean certainly it's not gonna cause broad sweeping changes, but it's your town and it's important to get involved in local government as well as voting every four years. Because if you don't someone else will and you may not get the city you want!

Democracy in action~!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Spaceman Spiff_*
post Sep 5 2002, 03:55 PM
Post #87





Guests






QUOTE(Invader3k @ Sep 5 2002, 04:31 PM)
"You *are* aware we really don't live in a democracy (well, not a true democracy, anyway)? "

Oh, some idiot always brings this up. Yes, we all know that technically in a "true democracy" everyone votes on everything. This would be obviously impossible in a nation with 285 million people, so we use REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY! Oh my god! It's not real democracy! We are ruled by a facist regime! Run for the hills...

Get off your high horse and get with the real world, please.

I was merely trying to point out the fact *since* we don't live in a true democracy, using the "more people voted for Gore" argument is pretty pointless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Olympic Slam_*
post Sep 5 2002, 04:01 PM
Post #88





Guests






QUOTE(Invader3k @ Sep 5 2002, 12:31 PM)
"You *are* aware we really don't live in a democracy (well, not a true democracy, anyway)? "

Oh, some idiot always brings this up. Yes, we all know that technically in a "true democracy" everyone votes on everything. This would be obviously impossible in a nation with 285 million people, so we use REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY! Oh my god! It's not real democracy! We are ruled by a facist regime! Run for the hills...

Get off your high horse and get with the real world, please.

People often overlook this but our style of free market capitalism works as a form of true democracy. The people decide what products are worthy of buying, which are quality and which are not worthy of purchase (Crystal Pepsi anyone?) When purchasing a certain product, you vote for it and the makers of the product get instant feedback. Don't let any of the socialists or greens fool you when they want a controlled market in their democracy, they're just contradicting everything they stand for.

p.s fuck socialmism, communism and all the "red, diaper, doper baby" supporters of them. (Michael Savage fans should know of the rddb reference. ) (IMG:http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_danielisthor_*
post Sep 5 2002, 07:10 PM
Post #89





Guests






QUOTE(Olympic Slam @ Sep 5 2002, 04:01 PM)
QUOTE(Invader3k @ Sep 5 2002, 12:31 PM)
"You *are* aware we really don't live in a democracy (well, not a true democracy, anyway)? "

Oh, some idiot always brings this up. Yes, we all know that technically in a "true democracy" everyone votes on everything. This would be obviously impossible in a nation with 285 million people, so we use REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY! Oh my god! It's not real democracy! We are ruled by a facist regime! Run for the hills...

Get off your high horse and get with the real world, please.

People often overlook this but our style of free market capitalism works as a form of true democracy. The people decide what products are worthy of buying, which are quality and which are not worthy of purchase (Crystal Pepsi anyone?) When purchasing a certain product, you vote for it and the makers of the product get instant feedback. Don't let any of the socialists or greens fool you when they want a controlled market in their democracy, they're just contradicting everything they stand for.

p.s fuck socialmism, communism and all the "red, diaper, doper baby" supporters of them. (Michael Savage fans should know of the rddb reference. ) (IMG:http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Michael Savage and his Savage Nation is becoming one of my most favorite radio programs to listen to. I get him at 8pm on 770 WABC here in New Jersey.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Vern Gagne_*
post Sep 5 2002, 10:11 PM
Post #90





Guests






Whenever I've heard him he's just way to over the top. Last week he went from criticizing liberals, to acting like one, when he said it was terrible that arab men are being held unfairly by the gov't. Than he started whining about Iraq. Something about it seemed like an act.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2017 - 10:54 AM
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here