Anti American Posts

[Primo]

i wish Gore won..Maybe alot of the bullshit would stop.I actully thought Clinton did a pretty good job..We need a President like Roosevelt.SO anybody that can help get in there at 2004. Bush ran this country into a big ass ditch.

[Don Jacob]

so YOU decided that that George Bush should be president even though Al Gore had more votes??
you decided to bomb afghanistan??
YOU decided to put the "parental advisory" on explicit cd's ??

...
....
...
i think not...

the people dont decide a shit... not even a rightfull president

1. actually yes the people DO decide, each state is like a prize and is worth a certain amount of points california the largest (54) and wyoming or alaska the smallest.......this all goes through the electora college and if you win alot of the big states you win the election.....bush was the former gov of texas (the second biggest 'prize') so ummm yeah you can seehow that effected something there and florida is the 3rd  biggest and bush's brother governs that so ummmmm yeah that also effected things......alsothe NADER factor cheated gore out of electoral points in key states so that fucked him.....gore won a lot of the small states and california and the popular overall vote and would've won IFF there wasn't the electoral system....but a technicallity screwed him........i think Gore should've been pres but the electoral system (which was in the past virtually a nonfactor) was a big factor becuase of  very close and historic race, so it's like whaaaaaaaaaaaat !!!!! to me saying we don't pick our pres we do it's just in a weird way.....think of it like jepordy the game show yeah you can answer all the easy questions that are worthless and answer the most ?'s but your not always going to win that way, you gotta get them daily doubles and the big questions


2. congress decides to declare war, congress is made up of the house of represenatives which is half of congress.....the house of reps have a certain amount of reps by the population of states (california being the biggest has 54 reps and wyoming has like 1) each of them are from a certain district in thier state and are suppose to be the men and women who think like the majority of the people in their district........so if congress declares a war.....guess who they're speaking for

it's not always that reps personal opinion either that he choses when he votes either....your always seeing shit in papers and crap saying house rep so and so voted yes on such and such dispite reported dislike for such and such it's a complex thing and sometimes it gets corropt when reps and senators lose touch with their states or become corropted but all and all it's pretty good way to do business

3. why should  a sticker matter? i support something like that and legally it IS neccisary , do you want your child to watch  nude scences when he's 10 years old?? do you want your child to hear about gun violence and drug use when they're 11......no, do you want meat that's not gone through the FDA and rated? HEEEEELLLL NO! it's all a protection devise for parents , and that's what GOV is suppose to be .....protection for its citizens

i rest my case



the people rule my country , not a dictator(s)

[Don Jacob]

i wish Gore won..Maybe alot of the bullshit would stop.I actully thought Clinton did a pretty good job..We need a President like Roosevelt.SO anybody that can help get in there at 2004. Bush ran this country into a big ass ditch.

we might get our wish yo


it looks like it might be Gore/Clinton in 2004 .....hillary clinton that is


and everyon in the media is doing polls like if it was gore and bush again who would you vote fore....and gore is looking GOOD in those polls.....also liberman is what bogged down gore last time cuz liberals thought liberman was too conservative so some of their votes went to nader i think....and if nader doesn't run it should be a better race, plus 2000 elections still had the sour taste of the clinton scandol around so that hurt gore too......so yeh if Gore accepts his nomination....Gore might be pres

[King Tech Quadafi]

i wish Gore won..Maybe alot of the bullshit would stop.I actully thought Clinton did a pretty good job..We need a President like Roosevelt.SO anybody that can help get in there at 2004. Bush ran this country into a big ass ditch.

and everyon in the media is doing polls like if it was gore and bush again who would you vote fore....and gore is looking GOOD in those polls.....also liberman is what bogged down gore last time cuz liberals thought liberman was too conservative so some of their votes went to nader i think....and if nader doesn't run it should be a better race, plus 2000 elections still had the sour taste of the clinton scandol around so that hurt gore too......so yeh if Gore accepts his nomination....Gore might be pres

[Maestro Minded]

so YOU decided that that George Bush should be president even though Al Gore had more votes??
you decided to bomb afghanistan??
YOU decided to put the "parental advisory" on explicit cd's ??

...
....
...
i think not...

the people dont decide a shit... not even a rightfull president

1. actually yes the people DO decide, each state is like a prize and is worth a certain amount of points california the largest (54) and wyoming or alaska the smallest.......this all goes through the electora college and if you win alot of the big states you win the election.....bush was the former gov of texas (the second biggest 'prize') so ummm yeah you can seehow that effected something there and florida is the 3rd  biggest and bush's brother governs that so ummmmm yeah that also effected things......alsothe NADER factor cheated gore out of electoral points in key states so that fucked him.....gore won a lot of the small states and california and the popular overall vote and would've won IFF there wasn't the electoral system....but a technicallity screwed him........i think Gore should've been pres but the electoral system (which was in the past virtually a nonfactor) was a big factor becuase of  very close and historic race, so it's like whaaaaaaaaaaaat !!!!! to me saying we don't pick our pres we do it's just in a weird way.....think of it like jepordy the game show yeah you can answer all the easy questions that are worthless and answer the most ?'s but your not always going to win that way, you gotta get them daily doubles and the big questions


2. congress decides to declare war, congress is made up of the house of represenatives which is half of congress.....the house of reps have a certain amount of reps by the population of states (california being the biggest has 54 reps and wyoming has like 1) each of them are from a certain district in thier state and are suppose to be the men and women who think like the majority of the people in their district........so if congress declares a war.....guess who they're speaking for

it's not always that reps personal opinion either that he choses when he votes either....your always seeing shit in papers and crap saying house rep so and so voted yes on such and such dispite reported dislike for such and such it's a complex thing and sometimes it gets corropt when reps and senators lose touch with their states or become corropted but all and all it's pretty good way to do business

3. why should  a sticker matter? i support something like that and legally it IS neccisary , do you want your child to watch  nude scences when he's 10 years old?? do you want your child to hear about gun violence and drug use when they're 11......no, do you want meat that's not gone through the FDA and rated? HEEEEELLLL NO! it's all a protection devise for parents , and that's what GOV is suppose to be .....protection for its citizens

i rest my case



the people rule my country , not a dictator(s)

1. the fact still remains... the president with most votes didnt became president...

2. since the truthfully president didnt get his spot, technically, bush's acts does NOT represent his people.

3. rock musicians are allowed to talk bullsihit without any parental advisory.... i even remember that song "im your bitch im your lover" or something like that... it was shown on mtv and shit with no problem... so explain for me how that can be fair

[Don Jacob]

1. the fact still remains... the president with most votes didnt became president...

2. since the truthfully president didnt get his spot, technically, bush's acts does NOT represent his people.

3. rock musicians are allowed to talk bullsihit without any parental advisory.... i even remember that song "im your bitch im your lover" or something like that... it was shown on mtv and shit with no problem... so explain for me how that can be fair

1. that's not the idea, it's obvious you dont understand the electoral college.  it's  not set up cut and dry like that, it's obvious you don't understand it ,  no offense cuz i don't either but i understand it more apparently

2. yeah no shit

3. so what are you trying to say? rock stars shouln't be able to have freedom of speech? parental advisory stickers are jsut there to let parents know what their kids are listening to , just like the motion  picture ratings

[Trauma-san]

Yall are street dreaming.  There's no way bush will get beat next election.  He'll just rally up american sentiment over 9-11, and win by a landslide.  

[Trauma-san]

BTW, you said you don't understand the electoral college.. here's what you're missing.

All 50 states are important to the president... BUT! There's a hella lot more people living in California, over Rhode Island.  If there were no electoral college, the presidents would never give a SH*T about Rhode Island, because they could lose every vote in that state, and it wouldn't mean crap.  The reason the electoral college is in place, is so that each state has a better "weight" or whatever towards the final election.  For instance, say, hypothetically, that 2/3rd's of america lived in Nevada.  The presidental candidates would all just rally nevada, because the rest of the united states would be unimportant... whoever won nevada's votes would be the winner... so they'd never even visit the other 49 states.  That's extreme, but that's the ideal, on an extremely watered down scale, behind the electoral college.  Peace~

[Trauma-san]

BTW, with that said, I think it's all a load of crap and needs to be done away with, and left up to popular vote.  Peace~

[Don Seer]

yup i believe in one vote, one voice.

here i believe its done by having a majority in regional seats and these seats relate to having a seat in the parliament, the final majority then has power.
its a little more complicated than that though.
seems similar to the US system.

[Don Jacob]

i jumped a few chapters in my government book at school and heres what it says about the electoral college



The original version of he electoral college worked as the framers intended only for as long as George Washington was willing to seek and hold the presidency. He was twice, and uanimously, elected President. That is, in 1789 and agan in 1792, each elector cast one of his two ballot for the great Virginian.
flaws began to ppear in the syste in 1796, however. By the, political partie had begun to form. John Adams the Federalist candidate, was elected to the presidency. Thomas Jefferson , an arch-rival and Democratic-Republican, who lost to Adams by just 3 votesin the electoral ballotin, became his vice president.

the framers wre against selecting the president by eitherof the obvious ways: by Congress or by a dirct vote of the people. Early in the convention, most of the delegates favored selection by Congress. Lter nearlyall delegates came to the view that congressional selection would as hamilton said, put the presidet "too much under the legislative thumb" only a few o the framersfvored choosing the president by popular vote. nerly all agreed that that wouldlead "to tumult and disorder" the Most delegates felt, too, that the people, scttered over so wde an area, could not possibly know enough about the available candidates to make wise, informed choices. George Mason of virginia spoke for most of his colleagus at the convention: "te extent of the country rendes it impossible tha the people can have the requisite capacity to judge th respective contentions of the candidates"
After week of debat, the Framers finlly agreed on a plan first put forward by hamiltonnder it, the president was to be chosn by a special body of electors. in detail the plan provided :

1. each of the several states would have as many presidential electors as it has senators and representatives in congress

2. these electors would be chosen in each state in a manner the state legislature directed

3. the electors, meeting in their own States, would ach cast two votes-each for a diffeent person for president

4. the electoral votes from the states would beopened and counted before a joit session of congress

5. the person receiving the largest nmber of electoral votes, provided that total was a majority of all the elector, would become president

6. the person wit the second highest number of electoral votes would become vice president

7. if a tie accurred, or if no one received the votes of a majority of the electors, the president would be chosen by thehouse representatives, voting by states

8. if a tie occurred for the second spot , the vice president would be chosen by the senate


the 12th amendment

the election of 1800 produced another natable rsult the 12th amendment was added to the constitution in 1804, to make certain there would never be another such fiasco. the amendment is a lengthyone, but it made noly one major change in the electoral college system. it seperated the presidential and vice presidentail elctions : "the electors...shal name i ther ballots the person voted for as prsidet, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice president"


the electoral college today

here you come to one of the least understood pars of the american political process. As the people vote in the presidential election, they do not cast a vote directly for one of the contenders for the presidency. instead, they vote to elect presidential electors

the electors are chosen by popular vote in every state and on the same day everywhere, the tuesday after the first monday in november every fourth year .

the electors are chosen at lage in every state except maine. that is, they are chosen on a winnertake all basis. the presidential candidate tchnically, the slate of electo candidates nomiated by is party-receiving he largest popular vote in the state wins all of that state's electoral votes. today the names of the individual elector candidates appear on the ballot in less than a fourth of te states. in most, only the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates are listed. they stand as "shorthand" for the elector slates


.(...then it talks about dates which arn' important for thisargument)


there is ever present threat that the winner of the popular vote wil not win the presidency. this continuing threat is largely the result of two factors. the most important is he winer take all featureof the electoral college system. in each state the winning candidae customarily receives all that states electoral votes thus, in 1992 bill clinton won arely 50 percen of the popular vote in NY, butall of that states 33 electoral votes -even though some 2.2 millon new yorkers voted for republican George Bush and aother 1.1 for Ross Perot

the other major culprit here is the way the electoal votes are distributed among the states. rmember, each state has 2 electors becuase of it's senate seats, regardless of it's population. because of them, the distribution of electoral votes does not match the facts of population and voter distribution

take the extreme case to illustrate this situation : California , the largest state, now has 54 (56 now, but this book was published in 95') electoral votes, 1 one for each 551,112 persons, basedon its 1990 population of 29,760, 021 ( it's well into 30 now and if i was never born it woulda been a clean 29,760, 020 in 1990 lol) Alaska has 3 elevtoral votes, or 1 for each 183,343 persons,with it's 1990 population of 550,043.
The popular vote winner has, in fact, failed to win the residency 3 (4 now)times : 1824, 1876, and 1888 (and now 2000) IN 1824 Andrew Jackson won the largest share (a plurality, but not a majority) of the popular votes: 151,174, or 40.3 percent of the ttal Jackson's nearest rival, john quincy adams, received 113,122 votes or 30.9%   Ninety-nine of the 261 electors then voted for jackson agin more than any other candidate but far short of a majority. the election thus went to the house early in 1825, it elected adams to the presidency.

in the election of 1876 , republican candidate Rutherford B Hays received 4034311 pop votes and his democrat opponent Smuel J Tilden, won 4288, 548. Tilden received 184 electoral votes  and Hayes won 185 electoral votes  and so became president


then it explains like 5 pages more about the elctoral college  but i think this is the most important stuff



so basically  when i'm 18 and i go vote for gore (if he runs) i'm voting for a dude who will vote for him for me in the electoral college ...if the majority of californians say no we want the republican to win.... my vote goes to the republican candidate and he gets california's 56 electoral votes....but california is usually democrat so 56 point would go to gore...basically you got to win key states like california  texas florida and new york who have the most votes and get the middle states like ohio and wisconsin which are the difference makers


so how Gore lost the electoral but won the majority was he won a bunch states that got 3 or 2 votes and barely lost states like texas and florida that had big