West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Lincoln on October 19, 2004, 08:44:47 PM
-
that he's not Bush? He's a pretty similar candidate on a lot of issues. Only everything is like half-assed approaches. If you dislike Bush because of attacking Iraq, do you not realize that Kerry would have done the same, except he would have waited? Kerry has the same favour toward Israel. He gives half-assed responses to his views on gay marriage.
Really, voting against someone is a spit on democracy.
-
that he's not Bush? He's a pretty similar candidate on a lot of issues. Only everything is like half-assed approaches. If you dislike Bush because of attacking Iraq, do you not realize that Kerry would have done the same, except he would have waited? Kerry has the same favour toward Israel. He gives half-assed responses to his views on gay marriage.
Really, voting against someone is a spit on democracy.
that was on the news earlier today... they said most people voting for kerry are only voting because they don't like bust
-
Part of the reason I am voting for Kerry is because I don't like Bush, but I do like Kerry's policies and character. How about the following reasons:
1. Kerry is more committed to the environment.
2. Kerry's healthcare plan is much better than Bush's
3. Kerry for a long time now has been urging us to invest in technology that will make us less dependent on foreign oil and more efficient in general.
4. Kerry will be more fiscally responsible than Bush.
5. Kerry is endorsed by virtually every living American economist with a credible record. All the nobel laureates want him. I have to believe he will manage the economy better than Bush will.
6. Kerry stated the day he cast his vote to give Bush authority to wage war:
"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances." Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002)
7. Kerry will support stem cell research.
8. For those of you who haven't seen it. Kerry's testimony before Congress at the age of 27 after coming home from Vietnam impressed me a great deal and demonstrates that he is an individual who cares passionately about this country. He committed to public service at a young age, and showed an ability to lead responsibly while still a young man.
That is enough for now.
-
Part of the reason I am voting for Kerry is because I don't like Bush, but I do like Kerry's policies and character. How about the following reasons:
1. Kerry is more committed to the environment.
2. Kerry's healthcare plan is much better than Bush's
3. Kerry for a long time now has been urging us to invest in technology that will make us less dependent on foreign oil and more efficient in general.
4. Kerry will be more fiscally responsible than Bush.
5. Kerry is endorsed by virtually every living American economist with a credible record. All the nobel laureates want him. I have to believe he will manage the economy better than Bush will.
6. Kerry stated the day he cast his vote to give Bush authority to wage war:
"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances." Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002)
7. Kerry will support stem cell research.
8. For those of you who haven't seen it. Kerry's testimony before Congress at the age of 27 after coming home from Vietnam impressed me a great deal and demonstrates that he is an individual who cares passionately about this country. He committed to public service at a young age, and showed an ability to lead responsibly while still a young man.
That is enough for now.
1-4 Did Bush not promise the same thing in 2000?
6.Kerry can't really say he wouldn't because he wasn't under the pressure to make the decision at that time.
7.I don't see how that's a good thing, but I am staunchly opposed to stem cell research.
-
As far as 8
09/25/04 8:34am
Joined 3/02
George W. Bush- His Political Views In 1978:
Bush on the issues in 1978
Quotations are taken from Texas newspapers that year.
Equal Rights Amendment: Thought it was "unnecessary."
Gay rights: Said he had "done nothing to promote homosexuality in our society."
Abortion: Said he was against "federal funding of abortions" but favored leaving the question of abortion up to a woman and her doctor.that does not mean I'm for abortion."
D.C. statehood: "I do not favor statehood for Washington, D.C. The District was formed to provide a neutral area from which the federal government could operate. It was never intended to be a state, nor have the powers of a state."
Foreign policy: "I would vote against the implementation of sanctions against either Rhodesia [now Zimbabwe] or the Republic of South Africa. It is contrary to the best interests of the United States to allow Marxist-backed guerrillas to take over any free country, especially in a strife-ridden continent like Africa."
Economic policy: "I believe in fiscal conservatism, which is free enterprise, the philosophy of growth, in other words, the exact opposite of stagnancy."
National health insurance: "I don't think it is economical and is a disincentive for the medical profession to be efficient."
Occupational Safety and Health Administration: "This is a misuse of power. It has overstepped its boundaries."
Social Security: "I think it will be bust in 10 years unless there are some changes. The ideal solution would be for Social Security to be made sound and people given the chance to invest the money the way they feel."
© 1999 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost...072999.htm
Just because someone was political at a young age does not qualify them to be President.
-
As long as we don't have a Muslim president, every president will have the same favor towards Israel (which is a good thing).
-
i dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?
-
I never said I was impressed with the fact that he was political. I was impressed with the fact that he stood up as a young man in front of congress and took on a leadership role in this country. I like the fact that he was always committed to public service while Bush was committed to public service only after a few failed attempts to make money.
I don't like cliche's but "actions speak louder than words." Bush may have promised things, but he hasn't delivered. He isn't fiscally responsible. He isn't protecting a woman's right to choose. He did not look out for the health and well-being of the American population when he decided to protect the US pharmseutical market from foreign competition.
We shouldn't be approaching politics in the same manner we approach sporting events. Its ok to irrationally cheer for your tearm in sports, but in politics that sort of mentality can produce devastating results. Too many people act like its a personal thing if your candidate wins or loses. It shouldn't be. In sports its fun to try and argue why your team is the best never giving the other tearm any credit. But whether the Yankees win or the Red Sox win it really doesn't matter. If you irrationally support the wrong side it doesn't just affect me, it affects you too.
-
Go BUSH!
I called the local Board of Elections today, just to make sure everything was o.k. with my voter registration. I checked online, and they had me listed as inactive, because they thought I moved. Good thing I called! They got it straightened away, so I'll be able to vote my conscience and for the man I think will do the better job for our country November 2nd. Also, my brother has been watching the debates on his own, and recently informed me he's registered and will also be voting for George Bush. *Keeps fingers crossed!!!
-
Go BUSH!
I called the local Board of Elections today, just to make sure everything was o.k. with my voter registration. I checked online, and they had me listed as inactive, because they thought I moved. Good thing I called! They got it straightened away, so I'll be able to vote my conscience and for the man I think will do the better job for our country November 2nd. Also, my brother has been watching the debates on his own, and recently informed me he's registered and will also be voting for George Bush. *Keeps fingers crossed!!!
North Carolina always votes for the republicans anyway... they say this time demos have a chance because edwards is a senator there, but I think that's pretty much not true.
but CWalker is from Ohio and Im damn sure he's going to vote Bush too, so be happy the significant part of Wcc (when it comes to voting) is on your side
-
Part of the reason I am voting for Kerry is because I don't like Bush, but I do like Kerry's policies and character. How about the following reasons:
1. Kerry is more committed to the environment.
2. Kerry's healthcare plan is much better than Bush's
3. Kerry for a long time now has been urging us to invest in technology that will make us less dependent on foreign oil and more efficient in general.
4. Kerry will be more fiscally responsible than Bush.
5. Kerry is endorsed by virtually every living American economist with a credible record. All the nobel laureates want him. I have to believe he will manage the economy better than Bush will.
6. Kerry stated the day he cast his vote to give Bush authority to wage war:
"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances." Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002)
7. Kerry will support stem cell research.
8. For those of you who haven't seen it. Kerry's testimony before Congress at the age of 27 after coming home from Vietnam impressed me a great deal and demonstrates that he is an individual who cares passionately about this country. He committed to public service at a young age, and showed an ability to lead responsibly while still a young man.
That is enough for now.
Really? Because candidates NEVER EVER say things that they dont end up doing. ::)
-
i was for bush.. then i realized i despise bushes views on drugs.. and hes too pro christianity.. and im an athiast.. and i believe in the seperation of church and state.. bush doesnt know what that is...
-
I lean so far left, that I bleed communist red. (oh, everyone else bleeds red, well I bleed red 'cause I'm a commie.) My dad was in the auto market, a market that Nader help ruin in the 70's, when he went to court again GM for making smaller, more fuel friendly cars. Nader single handly ruined the great Motor State of Michigan, so fuck him. Also, Nader is not on the California ballot, which is weird because this state is far left. Anyways, The next left person is Kerry, who I don't completely agree with in everything, but his the closest to my views. So I am voting for Kerry. Bush is way to far right for my liking, and his putting religion into everything he does I feel is a slap in the face to my beliefs. I doubt God has told anyone to invade Iraq in today's society, and then give reasons that don't exist. I feel that Kerry is a better person for the office, coming from my point of view, and the way I grew up.
-
i dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?
It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.
-
i dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?
It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.
Kerry does support my views and it is unfair to say that simply because Bush made promises he never kept Kerry would do the same thing. That logic is unfair. Because one candidate did bad things, so will the other candidate, so might as well just stick with the bad candidate we already have in place?
I do not know if Kerry will achieve all his stated priorities but I do believe they are his actual priorities. Meanwhile I can't say the same for GWB. I also can say that I strongly disagree with GWB basic worldview. For example,
"we need to kill the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." This statement makes very little sense.
"even knowing everything we know today I would have done everything exactly the same as I did it"
-
i dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?
It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.
Kerry does support my views and it is unfair to say that simply because Bush made promises he never kept Kerry would do the same thing. That logic is unfair. Because one candidate did bad things, so will the other candidate, so might as well just stick with the bad candidate we already have in place?
I do not know if Kerry will achieve all his stated priorities but I do believe they are his actual priorities. Meanwhile I can't say the same for GWB. I also can say that I strongly disagree with GWB basic worldview. For example,
"we need to kill the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." This statement makes very little sense.
"even knowing everything we know today I would have done everything exactly the same as I did it"
Ok, Kerry represents your views and that's why you're voting him, but I think you might be in the minority. Most Kerry voters really don't know what's going on, they just know they don't like Bush.
Come on, every politician makes promises and doesn't keep them. Bush isn't different in that respect. And how will Kerry be able to push all his bills through with a Republican Senate and Congress?
-
i dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?
It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.
the US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy already. the separate state elections where only the one who has the majority gets votes isnt very democratic. Im not saying it's not a democracy, since it obviously is since ppl vote for candidates. but it's not a ideal system that is used, not at all. the german system is much, much better. the greens (+other parties) can't do anything in america, whereas in germany and of course also in other countries with better election systems the smaller parties have way more power.
and about the thread title... if people want to make the earth a better place, and figure that this can only be done with putting bush outta office, I dont see how it's a bad thing if they vote kerry because he is the only won who has chances to become president besides bush... I really dont. Make the world a better place, vote for Kerry.
-
i dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?
It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.
Kerry does support my views and it is unfair to say that simply because Bush made promises he never kept Kerry would do the same thing. That logic is unfair. Because one candidate did bad things, so will the other candidate, so might as well just stick with the bad candidate we already have in place?
I do not know if Kerry will achieve all his stated priorities but I do believe they are his actual priorities. Meanwhile I can't say the same for GWB. I also can say that I strongly disagree with GWB basic worldview. For example,
"we need to kill the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." This statement makes very little sense.
"even knowing everything we know today I would have done everything exactly the same as I did it"
Ok, Kerry represents your views and that's why you're voting him, but I think you might be in the minority. Most Kerry voters really don't know what's going on, they just know they don't like Bush.
Come on, every politician makes promises and doesn't keep them. Bush isn't different in that respect. And how will Kerry be able to push all his bills through with a Republican Senate and Congress?
That is still not enough of a reason not to vote Kerry. If you believe the incumbent is absolutely horrible, why is it wrong to vote for his challenger just because his challenger isn't the second coming of Abraham Lincoln? It's faulty logic to say, your not allowed to vote for a challenger unless he is amazing - to do so is to degrade democracy. Ever candidate isn't going to be superman, but thats doesn't mean your required to vote for an incumbent whose views you just don't like. Let's face it. George Bush wasn't an amazing candidate in 2000. A lot of poeple voted for him because they were upset over the Clinton scandals. Yes, I would prefer if all voters were informed, but it just isn't fair to say "your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush."
-
the US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy already.
Holy shit. You just keep getting more and more ignorant with every post.
I don't even want to adress you because it's obvious you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about NOR would care to learn. Go read a book. You're a fucking moron.
-
i dont understand where your coming from tho lincoln. Say you do not like where the president has taken the country in the past 4 years. And you see the country goin more into the shitter with him as president. How is basing your vote on what you have wittnessed him do a spit in the face of democracy. As long as the other candidate isnt a complete joke how is that a spit in the face of democracy?
It's a spit in the face of democracy to vote for Kerry just because he could beat Bush. The whole reason we have democracy is so that you can vote the candidate who best represents your views, not who has a chance at winning. That's why 3rd parties have no chance. If people vote who you believe best represents their views then 3rd parties would have more support. For example, all the Nader support is going to Kerry, but Nader will never even reach the debates unless he gets votes.
Kerry does support my views and it is unfair to say that simply because Bush made promises he never kept Kerry would do the same thing. That logic is unfair. Because one candidate did bad things, so will the other candidate, so might as well just stick with the bad candidate we already have in place?
I do not know if Kerry will achieve all his stated priorities but I do believe they are his actual priorities. Meanwhile I can't say the same for GWB. I also can say that I strongly disagree with GWB basic worldview. For example,
"we need to kill the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." This statement makes very little sense.
"even knowing everything we know today I would have done everything exactly the same as I did it"
Ok, Kerry represents your views and that's why you're voting him, but I think you might be in the minority. Most Kerry voters really don't know what's going on, they just know they don't like Bush.
Come on, every politician makes promises and doesn't keep them. Bush isn't different in that respect. And how will Kerry be able to push all his bills through with a Republican Senate and Congress?
That is still not enough of a reason not to vote Kerry. If you believe the incumbent is absolutely horrible, why is it wrong to vote for his challenger just because his challenger isn't the second coming of Abraham Lincoln? It's faulty logic to say, your not allowed to vote for a challenger unless he is amazing - to do so is to degrade democracy. Ever candidate isn't going to be superman, but thats doesn't mean your required to vote for an incumbent whose views you just don't like. Let's face it. George Bush wasn't an amazing candidate in 2000. A lot of poeple voted for him because they were upset over the Clinton scandals. Yes, I would prefer if all voters were informed, but it just isn't fair to say "your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush."
I didn't say your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush. If I were in America, I'd likely vote for Michael Badnarik (spelling might be off).
-
the US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy already.
Holy shit. You just keep getting more and more ignorant with every post.
I don't even want to adress you because it's obvious you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about NOR would care to learn. Go read a book. You're a fucking moron.
1. nice job taking it out of context
2. how is it a perfect democracy, when EVERY vote for parties that are not one of the 2 main parties is practically a waste. further, how is it a perfect democratic system, when a candidate that has about 500 votes less in florida, doesnt get ANYTHING. and also, how is it a really good democratic system when certain states ALWAYS give electoral votes to a certain party. if you live in Kansas being a democrat for instance, well, then you aint got to say anything cause all the electoral votes of Kansas will go to the republicans anyfuckingway. your vote is just symbolic and doesnt do the slightest change.
-
I didn't say your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush. If I were in America, I'd likely vote for Michael Badnarik (spelling might be off).
well the difference is that voting for Michael Badnarik won't change anything anywhere.
voting for Kerry, you have a good chance of contributing to a change.
with the system there is in the US, I dont see why people waste their precious votes on a candidate that has absolutely no chance of getting the majority in the respective state, yet winning the entire election.
-
1. nice job taking it out of context
2. how is it a perfect democracy, when EVERY vote for parties that are not one of the 2 main parties is practically a waste. further, how is it a perfect democratic system, when a candidate that has about 500 votes less in florida, doesnt get ANYTHING. and also, how is it a really good democratic system when certain states ALWAYS give electoral votes to a certain party. if you live in Kansas being a democrat for instance, well, then you aint got to say anything cause all the electoral votes of Kansas will go to the republicans anyfuckingway. your vote is just symbolic and doesnt do the slightest change.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188292665X/qid=1098293074/sr=8-3/ref=pd_ka_3/104-0341688-2339160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0975526421/qid=1098293074/sr=8-4/ref=pd_ka_4/104-0341688-2339160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1889119539/qid=1098293074/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-0341688-2339160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
-
I never said that the US isnt a democracy.
It's less democratic than other democracies. Hands down.
-
I never said that the US isnt a democracy.
the US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy
-
I didn't say your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush. If I were in America, I'd likely vote for Michael Badnarik (spelling might be off).
well the difference is that voting for Michael Badnarik won't change anything anywhere.
voting for Kerry, you have a good chance of contributing to a change.
with the system there is in the US, I dont see why people waste their precious votes on a candidate that has absolutely no chance of getting the majority in the respective state, yet winning the entire election.
It's not about the change, the point of democracy is to vote who best represents your views so that citizens have at least some input on the government.
-
I didn't say your degrading democracy if you don't vote George Bush. If I were in America, I'd likely vote for Michael Badnarik (spelling might be off).
well the difference is that voting for Michael Badnarik won't change anything anywhere.
voting for Kerry, you have a good chance of contributing to a change.
with the system there is in the US, I dont see why people waste their precious votes on a candidate that has absolutely no chance of getting the majority in the respective state, yet winning the entire election.
It's not about the change, the point of democracy is to vote who best represents your views so that citizens have at least some input on the government.
we cant argue about this, we just have different opinions. In my opinion voting a 3rd party candidate is a waste of your vote.
-
I never said that the US isnt a democracy.
the US electoral system is a spit in the face of democracy
nice job taking it out of context again, benzino.
-
i dont see voting against bush b/c you do not like what direction the country has gone in under his rule as a spit in the face of democracy. If you can back up how you feel i dont see it as a spit in the face. Now if your just going to vote against bush b/c its suddenly the cool thing to do and you dont kno the facts about bush or kerry, than that is a spit in the face of democracy. and the same goes for people that vote against kerry b/c they still think we caught the real man behind 9/11, saddam hussein.
-
I'm voting for Kerry because he is the best person for the job. PERIOD.
VOTE FOR KERRY/EDWARDS
(http://www.johnkerry.com/feeds/media/88x31.gif)
-
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.
-
No one knows shit about the electoral college... here's a quote from Alexander Hamilton, a founder member of the U.S.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
Originally, people elected the people to vote for president. So in your congress distract, you voted for the person to vote for president. No one back then knew who was running, they couldn't see him, hear him. Information was not as easy to come by now. Now we can turn on C-Span and look in on congress, C-Span 2 and watch the senate, turn on the TV and see our president, the people running, it was a different world back the. That's why we have the electoral college that's in the U.S. It was put in the constitution to keep the vote out of the people's hand, because the presidental election is too important to put into the regular person's hand. One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a receipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century. This part I have issues with. I think our vote should all count equally, and we should each be people that have an equal say in our president. We should vote as a nation, not as seprate states. The time of the founding of this country is over, we need to move forward with our country and modernize.
-
If you want to talk about moving forward and modernizing, how about that "Spell Check" button? I don't know how the Congress "distracts" you.
By the way, each vote does count "equally" because my vote is counted as 1 vote, and so is yours. Nobody here casts a vote that is counted as more than 1 vote.
Did you know that the top 5 states (ranked by population) account for about 100 million people? 100 million people! That's about one-third of the nation's population. 10% of the states make up 33% of the population. You make the comparison, and do some elementary math, and tell me that smaller states wouldn't be fucked up the ass if we didn't have the electoral college. You think candidates would care about Wyoming? You think Bush would go and give speeches in Vermont or North Dakota about the economy? Fuck No. The candidates would focus on California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. With the electoral college, people living in states like Wyoming actually feel like their vote is important. Otherwise, we'd just have a bunch of people voting in guys whom they have no fuckin clue about, and that's exactly what you were arguing against.
-
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.
No, I know exactly how it works. At least as good as you, probably even better. And it sucks. The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans. New York isnt considered cause they always vote for the democrats. I have the knowledge I need, so shut up.
-
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.
No, I know exactly how it works. At least as good as you, probably even better. And it sucks. The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans. New York isnt considered cause they always vote for the democrats. I have the knowledge I need, so shut up.
Small states aren't "considered" because they always vote for Republicans? Are you really dumb enough to make comments like that? Your last sentence contradicts the rest of your post.
-
Just so I don't make you look like a complete idiot, I will just use data from the last election.
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont all went to AL GORE, THE DEMOCRAT.
Conecticut with 8 has the highest electoral vote of the states listed, and Delaware and Vermont actually have 3 each, so don't come with that "THEY ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN" bull.
-
If you want to talk about moving forward and modernizing, how about that "Spell Check" button? I don't know how the Congress "distracts" you.
hey.. do u have a phsycological problem against bad spelling.. or do you just use that to think you are smarter than others??
-
Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Indiana, Montana, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina and South Carolina, Texas - wont vote democratic.
The point is not if a state is actually small or not. The point is, there are many, many states that tend to always vote republican, and also a few that tend to always vote democratic.
Now, your point was that a lot of states with fewer ppl arent considered if the system was different because only few ppl are in it.
But, this, unfortunately is BS, since many states arent taken into account because everybody knows what they gon vote for.
The vote of the individual therefore doesnt count. A democrat in Texas can vote democratic all he wants, it wont matter. Same with a republican in New York.
I really dont see how that is better than states with few ppl being left out cause the popular vote they contribute is so small.
-
If you want to talk about moving forward and modernizing, how about that "Spell Check" button? I don't know how the Congress "distracts" you.
hey.. do u have a phsycological problem against bad spelling.. or do you just use that to think you are smarter than others??
Psychological* ;)
-
I really dont see how that is better than states with few ppl being left out cause the popular vote they contribute is so small.
LOL are you still arguing against me? You just proved my point, you retard. You admit that small states will be left out and that it's not a big deal since the votes they contribute aren't very many. So how does that make people living in small states feel? Seriously, use some common sense and logic.
-
I really dont see how that is better than states with few ppl being left out cause the popular vote they contribute is so small.
LOL are you still arguing against me? You just proved my point, you retard. You admit that small states will be left out and that it's not a big deal since the votes they contribute aren't very many. So how does that make people living in small states feel? Seriously, use some common sense and logic.
hm, do you just pretend to not get it or what is wrong with you otherwise? like it is now, big states like new york are being left out lol is that better... and if you dont live in a swing state, your vote is nothing but symbolic how doesnt that gobble dick? the system sucks. deal with it.
-
hm, do you just pretend to not get it or what is wrong with you otherwise? like it is now, big states like new york are being left out lol is that better... and if you dont live in a swing state, your vote is nothing but symbolic how doesnt that gobble dick? the system sucks. deal with it.
You seem to top yourself with each post. Now the big states are being left out? What's next? "The candidates don't care about any of the votes, they've just always had the life-long dream of being on T.V."
So, if you don't live in a swing state (California)... and people living in California lacked common sense (just like you) and a great number of them decide they won't vote since their vote doesn't count anyways, and more Republicans show up at the polls than Democrats... then would the votes count?
So not only are you proving yourself to be wrong and an idiot in this case, but you're also telling me to deal with a system that I'm comfortable with (you're the one who has a problem with it, and I don't even see why, you bratwurst)
-
hm, do you just pretend to not get it or what is wrong with you otherwise? like it is now, big states like new york are being left out lol is that better... and if you dont live in a swing state, your vote is nothing but symbolic how doesnt that gobble dick? the system sucks. deal with it.
You seem to top yourself with each post. Now the big states are being left out? What's next? "The candidates don't care about any of the votes, they've just always had the life-long dream of being on T.V."
So, if you don't live in a swing state (California)... and people living in California lacked common sense (just like you) and a great number of them decide they won't vote since their vote doesn't count anyways, and more Republicans show up at the polls than Democrats... then would the votes count?
So not only are you proving yourself to be wrong and an idiot in this case, but you're also telling me to deal with a system that I'm comfortable with (you're the one who has a problem with it, and I don't even see why, you bratwurst)
LoL why would you bring up things that wont happen anyway, like no democrats going to the polls and bullshit like this, fatass.
Another point why the system sucks so hard: 3rd parties wont have any say whatsoever.
The only reason why they still go to states like NY is fund-raising.
You're wrong here buddy. Insulting me wont save you.
-
hm.. wasnt there another post by me ???
anyways what I also wanted to add is if you say it makes ppl feel bad that live in smaller states... how the hell is that relevant when you go by popular vote? every vote counts the same. no matter what state you live in.
also, dont you think somebody from kansas feels bad when he's a democrat but his vote doesnt matter cause his state always votes republican.
-
LoL why would you bring up things that wont happen anyway, like no democrats going to the polls and bullshit like this, fatass.
Another point why the system sucks so hard: 3rd parties wont have any say whatsoever.
The only reason why they still go to states like NY is fund-raising.
You're wrong here buddy. Insulting me wont save you.
My point was that it would happen if people had your logic (or lack there of) since they won't think their vote counts
3rd parties won't have any say? Now you're crossing the line from stupid to retarded. They might not win the election, but if you know anything about U.S. history, then you wouldn't make dumb comments like that.
Insulting you won't save me? There's nothing I need to save myself from; however, now we know why you called me "fatass" (to save yourself). I was pointing out an observation I had made about you... you just made a comment to prove to us how dumb you are with your elementary remarks
-
LoL why would you bring up things that wont happen anyway, like no democrats going to the polls and bullshit like this, fatass.
Another point why the system sucks so hard: 3rd parties wont have any say whatsoever.
The only reason why they still go to states like NY is fund-raising.
You're wrong here buddy. Insulting me wont save you.
My point was that it would happen if people had your logic (or lack there of) since they won't think their vote counts
3rd parties won't have any say? Now you're crossing the line from stupid to retarded. They might not win the election, but if you know anything about U.S. history, then you wouldn't make dumb comments like that.
Insulting you won't save me? There's nothing I need to save myself from; however, now we know why you called me "fatass" (to save yourself). I was pointing out an observation I had made about you... you just made a comment to prove to us how dumb you are with your elementary remarks
3rd parties have the say to steal votes of the democrats and shit like that, but no way they ever win a state.
I called you a fatass because you called me a bratwurst, just to make it even with the stereotypical attacks.
I dont see how you can possibly say Im dumb for this thread. There are good reasons for not liking this system.
-
hm.. wasnt there another post by me ???
anyways what I also wanted to add is if you say it makes ppl feel bad that live in smaller states... how the hell is that relevant when you go by popular vote? every vote counts the same. no matter what state you live in.
Ok, I guess I have to repeat myself for the slow ones. Candidates would just care about the larger states and wouldn't give a shit about the smaller ones. The top 5 states (ranked by population) account for about 100 million people. 10% of states = 33% of the population. You think any candidate would visit Wyoming for support? NO. WTF FOR? WHY GO TO WYOMING WITH LESS THAN 500,000 PEOPLE, WHEN YOU CAN VISIT CALIFORNIA WHERE THERE ARE ABOUT 30 MILLION PEOPLE?!
-
3rd parties have the say to steal votes of the democrats and shit like that, but no way they ever win a state.
Like I said, educate yourself, and actually know what the hell you're talking about before you talk about it. More often than not, 3rd parties gain support for stances they take on certain issues. If they bring up an issue that many people relate to and support, then the Democrat/Republican candidate will see that he could get some extra votes by talking about the issue, so he includes that in his campaign. So, in the end the issue or concern is taken care of, not always to a full extent, but progess is made. That's what 3rd parties often hope to achieve. If you don't believe me, then go read a U.S. history book.
-
hm.. wasnt there another post by me ???
anyways what I also wanted to add is if you say it makes ppl feel bad that live in smaller states... how the hell is that relevant when you go by popular vote? every vote counts the same. no matter what state you live in.
Ok, I guess I have to repeat myself for the slow ones. Candidates would just care about the larger states and wouldn't give a shit about the smaller ones. The top 5 states (ranked by population) account for about 100 million people. 10% of states = 33% of the population. You think any candidate would visit Wyoming for support? NO. WTF FOR? WHY GO TO WYOMING WITH LESS THAN 500,000 PEOPLE, WHEN YOU CAN VISIT CALIFORNIA WHERE THERE ARE ABOUT 30 MILLION PEOPLE?!
I guess I have to repeat myself for the stubborn, pseudo-smart ones.
yea if you talk about visiting, all I can say is that noone will visit wyoming for electoral votes anyway, since they'll vote republican. it is a total waste of time for both candidates. why would a democrat go there if he wont get the majority and therefore nothing anyway. why would a republican go there if he gets the majority no matter what.
on the other side, we got the same thing with new york (for democrats) and also california.
-
3rd parties have the say to steal votes of the democrats and shit like that, but no way they ever win a state.
Like I said, educate yourself, and actually know what the hell you're talking about before you talk about it. More often than not, 3rd parties gain support for stances they take on certain issues. If they bring up an issue that many people relate to and support, then the Democrat/Republican candidate will see that he could get some extra votes by talking about the issue, so he includes that in his campaign. So, in the end the issue or concern is taken care of, not always to a full extent, but progess is made. That's what 3rd parties often hope to achieve. If you don't believe me, then go read a U.S. history book.
well that's really noble but what Nader achieved in 2000 were 2 things:
1) proving that he hasnt the slightest thing to say with this system.. he might change something indirectly like you state, but he has no direct say like in germany where even the smallest parties have a few seats. you go and study a book, one reason why Nader candidates is to prove how unjust the electoral system you have is.
2) taking Gore's votes, so that Bush became President.
-
I guess I have to repeat myself for the stubborn, pseudo-smart ones.
yea if you talk about visiting, all I can say is that noone will visit wyoming for electoral votes anyway, since they'll vote republican. it is a total waste of time for both candidates. why would a democrat go there if he wont get the majority and therefore nothing anyway. why would a republican go there if he gets the majority no matter what.
on the other side, we got the same thing with new york (for democrats) and also california.
Are you expecting me to prove you wrong on the same thing more than once? Not all small states always vote Republican. If you really think that, then you're officially an idiot.
-
I guess I have to repeat myself for the stubborn, pseudo-smart ones.
yea if you talk about visiting, all I can say is that noone will visit wyoming for electoral votes anyway, since they'll vote republican. it is a total waste of time for both candidates. why would a democrat go there if he wont get the majority and therefore nothing anyway. why would a republican go there if he gets the majority no matter what.
on the other side, we got the same thing with new york (for democrats) and also california.
Are you expecting me to prove you wrong on the same thing more than once? Not all small states always vote Republican. If you really think that, then you're officially an idiot.
lol of course I dont think this. fuck small/huge. point is, there are certain states that always vote for a certain party.
-
well that's really noble but what Nader achieved in 2000 were 2 things:
1) proving that he hasnt the slightest thing to say with this system.. he might change something indirectly like you state, but he has no direct say like in germany where even the smallest parties have a few seats. you go and study a book, one reason why Nader candidates is to prove how unjust the electoral system you have is.
2) taking Gore's votes, so that Bush became President.
1) Might change some things? Do you even know anything about Nader's accomplishments?
2) Ok, so whose fault is that? If Nader didn't want Bush to be president, then he shouldn't have ran. If Nader doesn't care, why do you?
-
Are you expecting me to prove you wrong on the same thing more than once? Not all small states always vote Republican. If you really think that, then you're officially an idiot.
lol of course I dont think this. fuck small/huge. point is, there are certain states that always vote for a certain party.
No, I know exactly how it works. At least as good as you, probably even better. And it sucks. The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans. New York isnt considered cause they always vote for the democrats. I have the knowledge I need, so shut up.
LMAO. OWNED. NOW WILL YOU SHUT UP?
-
Bush ia a moron a FOOL JOKER COURT JESTER Coke Snorting LOSER RETARD!
-
horrible. I made a huge ass post and the session timed out and it was all gone.
well... start over... ::)
about nader:
em.. why should I not care, just because Nader doesnt? Am I him? No, definitely not. He's mad cause the democrats act more and more like republicans and wants to "punish" them :D
well, I dont want dems act like reps, but nevertheless dems are still better than reps to me, and kerry is much better than bush to me, so to be straight with you I dont like Nader, because he's indirectly helping Bush, which isnt a good thing in my opinion.
Are you expecting me to prove you wrong on the same thing more than once? Not all small states always vote Republican. If you really think that, then you're officially an idiot.
lol of course I dont think this. fuck small/huge. point is, there are certain states that always vote for a certain party.
No, I know exactly how it works. At least as good as you, probably even better. And it sucks. The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans. New York isnt considered cause they always vote for the democrats. I have the knowledge I need, so shut up.
LMAO. OWNED. NOW WILL YOU SHUT UP?
you say popular vote system is bad cause the small states dont get so much action then.
I say: true,
BUT: with the electoral college system many states dont get much action either (and not only some small.. also some huge like NY, CA, Texas) because they gon vote for a certain party no matter what. Still candidates go to, let's say new york, because of fund-raising. but the campaign is definitely centered on swing-states like florida, ohio and pennsylvania.
conclusion: your argument that small states dont get the attention is irrelevant, cause having your current system certain small states (and also big states) wont get much action either.
you say Nader still affects US politics.
I say: true,
BUT: he doesnt affect them directly because he can never have a majority. never.
also, popular vote is better cause every fucking vote really counts. in the electoral college system votes of republican new yorkers never matter, only the majority in each state matters and if one candidate leads by 500 votes or 20 % doesnt matter.
edit: btw .. concerning your quote where you try to prove that I am contradicting myself.. no I dont, because many traditional republican states are the ones with a low population. that's a fact. and those are the ones I talked about in the post. of course there are also little states that vote democratic, but I havent talked about those in this case.
example: you say wyoming is left out in a popular vote system because the population is nothing compated to cali's population. I say right, but in the electoral college system it's left out as well, because wyoming's electoral votes always go to the reps.
-
Instead of reading your post, and proving more of your points wrong, I'll just respond with this because this speaks for itself:
Are you expecting me to prove you wrong on the same thing more than once? Not all small states always vote Republican. If you really think that, then you're officially an idiot.
lol of course I dont think this. fuck small/huge. point is, there are certain states that always vote for a certain party.
No, I know exactly how it works. At least as good as you, probably even better. And it sucks. The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans. New York isnt considered cause they always vote for the democrats. I have the knowledge I need, so shut up.
LMAO. OWNED. NOW WILL YOU SHUT UP?
-
sorry you're right, I dont have anything to come up with anymore. so Im just going to make a stupid comment and hope nobody reads your post and finds mine funny. take your shit outta context like benzino, hopefully works. sorry for wasting your time man
it's ok
-
If that's gonna help you sleep at night then keep rewriting everything I say according to your liking...
-
If that's gonna help you sleep at night then keep rewriting everything I say according to your liking...
you did get it didnt cha?
if not, I just put your real thoughts in :D ...plus made a little fun of you.
-
If that's gonna help you sleep at night then keep rewriting everything I say according to your liking...
you did get it didnt cha?
if not, I just put your real thoughts in :D ...plus made a little fun of you.
3 cheers for you. What a way to lose an argument... attempt to make fun of the guy who exposes your stupidity. LOL, and you're a mod on top of that? LOL grow up, and don't take this stuff too serious. Many more will come along and make you look like the fool that you are, so get on with your life.
-
If that's gonna help you sleep at night then keep rewriting everything I say according to your liking...
you did get it didnt cha?
if not, I just put your real thoughts in :D ...plus made a little fun of you.
3 cheers for you. What a way to lose an argument... attempt to make fun of the guy who exposes your stupidity. LOL, and you're a mod on top of that? LOL grow up, and don't take this stuff too serious. Many more will come along and make you look like the fool that you are, so get on with your life.
I havent lost the argument. If you really think you wont this you're a weirdo. Im done now. Shut up or keep on talking, I really dont care.
-
concerning your quote where you try to prove that I am contradicting myself.. no I dont, because many traditional republican states are the ones with a low population. that's a fact. and those are the ones I talked about in the post. of course there are also little states that vote democratic, but I havent talked about those in this case.
example: you say wyoming is left out in a popular vote system because the population is nothing compated to cali's population. I say right, but in the electoral college system it's left out as well, because wyoming's electoral votes always go to the reps.
-
Are you expecting me to prove you wrong on the same thing more than once? Not all small states always vote Republican. If you really think that, then you're officially an idiot.
lol of course I dont think this. fuck small/huge. point is, there are certain states that always vote for a certain party.
No, I know exactly how it works. At least as good as you, probably even better. And it sucks. The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans. New York isnt considered cause they always vote for the democrats. I have the knowledge I need, so shut up.
LMAO. OWNED. NOW WILL YOU SHUT UP?
How could I ever think that I was right and you were wrong? Beats me...
-
Children, Children. Simmer Down.
-
Jamal, Jamal, Jamal.. all he can do is bringing the same stupid quote up over and over again.
Yet the quote isnt considering the topic as such, it just tries to show how I contradict myself.
And yet again, I dont contradict myself cause I dont talk about all states.
-and you ask me if I can read.
Children, Children. Simmer Down.
writing pages over this shit wasnt mature I admit that but when somebody attacks me like that I cant just let it go
-
writing pages over this shit wasnt mature I admit that but when somebody attacks me like that I cant just let it go
Might as well beat off to more male rappers.
-
writing pages over this shit wasnt mature I admit that but when somebody attacks me like that I cant just let it go
Might as well beat off to more male rappers.
dude, you're in your twenties, and this isnt the G-Spot.
-
(http://www.sonypictures.com/groups/us/documents/image/gp050112.jpg)
-
Jamal, Jamal, Jamal.. all he can do is bringing the same stupid quote up over and over again.
Yet the quote isnt considering the topic as such, it just tries to show how I contradict myself.
And yet again, I dont contradict myself cause I dont talk about all states.
-and you ask me if I can read.
You said "The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans".
Now let's break this down.
they = the small states
always vote for republicans
Where does it say that you're referring to "some, but not all small states". Let me guess: You wrote it, but it's in another thread. LOL
-
Jamal, Jamal, Jamal.. all he can do is bringing the same stupid quote up over and over again.
Yet the quote isnt considering the topic as such, it just tries to show how I contradict myself.
And yet again, I dont contradict myself cause I dont talk about all states.
-and you ask me if I can read.
You said "The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans".
Now let's break this down.
they = the small states
always vote for republicans
Where does it say that you're referring to "some, but not all small states". Let me guess: You wrote it, but it's in another thread. LOL
where does it say I was referring to literally all states? you cant find that either.
my point was that each system leaves a few countries more out than others.. which made your argument invalid.
-
Jamal, Jamal, Jamal.. all he can do is bringing the same stupid quote up over and over again.
Yet the quote isnt considering the topic as such, it just tries to show how I contradict myself.
And yet again, I dont contradict myself cause I dont talk about all states.
-and you ask me if I can read.
You said "The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans".
Now let's break this down.
they = the small states
always vote for republicans
Where does it say that you're referring to "some, but not all small states". Let me guess: You wrote it, but it's in another thread. LOL
where does it say I was referring to literally all states? you cant find that either.
my point was that each system leaves a few countries more out than others.. which made your argument invalid.
Are you gonna deny this later also? LOL you fuckin idiot.
And by the way, when you say "the small states", in the literal sense, that means you're referring to all small states.
For example, if I were to say "Germans are stupid", I'd be referring to all Germans; however, if I were to say "Germans like 7even are stupid", then I'd be classifying a specific group.
Now shut up and learn your place. I've proven you wrong about 12 times in 2 threads. That's a record.
-
Hey Jamal, from what I've read 7even has made it clear through his posts that his quarrel with the US system is that the state counts more than the vote, and the individual vote with in that state that has a different vote than the majority is a powerless vote. He is saying that the each vote should go directly to the end. A candidate should win based on getting the most total votes, not winning the most states.
Personally I feel that it should move closer to a democracy than it currently is. In a pure Democracy the people should vote on each bill and major decision, and they should only be able to vote by passing a competency test to show that they are aware of what they are voting for. This way, only the interested and intelligent will vote, and interest and intelligence will be encouranged as a whole. This would take time to establish, but in the long run the country (any country) would benefit. i'm not sure how pratical that is, but it would be the best system. This way decisions are not left up to some rich guy that breaks all the promises he made to get the chance to make all the decisions. The results from each decision would be visible to the public at all times. Failure to comply with the decision would result in criminal charges. This would eliminate politicians.
-
In a pure Democracy the people should vote on each bill and major decision, and they should only be able to vote by passing a competency test to show that they are aware of what they are voting for. This way, only the interested and intelligent will vote, and interest and intelligence will be encouranged as a whole.
LMAO... please tell me that was a joke....
LOL one part contradicts the other. Is it a pure democracy if it doesn't allow unintelligent people like 7even to vote? How would the Harbingers of the world feel if they lived in a democracy that didn't allow them to vote? LOLLLLL
-
In a pure Democracy the people should vote on each bill and major decision, and they should only be able to vote by passing a competency test to show that they are aware of what they are voting for. This way, only the interested and intelligent will vote, and interest and intelligence will be encouranged as a whole.
LMAO... please tell me that was a joke....
LOL one part contradicts the other. Is it a pure democracy if it doesn't allow unintelligent people like 7even to vote? How would the Harbingers of the world feel if they lived in a democracy that didn't allow them to vote? LOLLLLL
I stated what a pure democarcy was, then I gave an example of how I think it should be played out, to avoid ignorant decisions. In ancient Greece every citizen was completely aware of what was going on politically. I feel that my idea would bring people closer to becoming completely aware as a whole. I never intended to imply that a pure democracy was one where only the smart vote. I just don't think any one should vote if they have no knowledge of what they are voting for. Sorry for the confusion.
-
I'm no expert when it comes to this, but I THINK things have changed just a tiny bit since "ancient Greece".
-
I'm no expert when it comes to this, but I THINK things have changed just a tiny bit since "ancient Greece".
Yes but that is where "democarcy" came from, and that is where it was best used. Ancient Greece is also the corner stone for the entire western culture. That being said, you are either an idiot, a moron who likes starting shit for no reason, or a guy that didn't understand my post. All I said was that when democracy was formed it was common for every citizen to be fully aware of what was happening with the potical system. You're response to this implies that people should not be aware of what's going on. Do you really believe that?
-
No, actually you said "only be able to vote by passing a competency test to show that they are aware of what they are voting for. This way, only the interested and intelligent will vote". That's different from just saying that only the intelligent were able to vote back then. And by the way, in ancient Greece, ALL FREE MALES were allowed to vote, not just the "intelligent" ones as you stated.
-
I've been gone for a while, but are you and 7even the Hairbinger trying to be WCC's own Dumb&Dumber or something?
-
By the way, you stated "only the interested and intelligent will vote, and interest and intelligence will be encouranged as a whole". Do you know that this was part of the reason that the electoral college was used in the first place? Obviously you didn't, but someone who PROBABLY knows better than you said this:
"It was ... desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the [office of the Presidency] ... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations"
---- Alexander Hamilton
Personally, I think Mr. Hamilton knows a little more about this stuff than some retard named Shallow.
-
7even *check*
Shallow *check*
8)
-
You have serious issues you know that?
All I said was what I thought the system should be like. I feel it would be more fair to the masses if the masses got to decide what their fate was. Going to war would be up to the people, not one man. This is just my opinion. I never meant to imply it has to be this way in order for us to strive. Alexander Hamilton has another opinion. But, if you think that the whole idea of this style of democracy was for anything other than keeping rich white men on top of the food chain, then you are a fool.
Oh and I said citizens in ancient Greece. I didn't say intellectuals. Citizens would imply all those who could vote, and yes that was just Greek males. I know that, and I never said all intelligent intelligent people. Try learning how to properly derive information through reading before you *check* me.
-
By the way, you stated "only the interested and intelligent will vote, and interest and intelligence will be encouranged as a whole". Do you know that this was part of the reason that the electoral college was used in the first place? Obviously you didn't, but someone who PROBABLY knows better than you said this:
"It was ... desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the [office of the Presidency] ... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations"
---- Alexander Hamilton
Personally, I think Mr. Hamilton knows a little more about this stuff than some retard named Shallow.
you have to remember though how outdated that way of thinking is. The founders of this country did not trust the early Americans for a very good reason, no one at that time would see the people runnig for president, nor would they hear them, know them, have any ideas what was going on in the capital. That's why the United States is more of a republic than a democracy. Democracy, everyone votes on everything. Every law that's passed, every bill, everything. Almost like California's propositions, we vote on everything, tax increases, tax cuts, school spending, school cutting, mary jane for medical use, we vote on everything. But the United States does not work like that, we vote in our representives to vote for us in the capital. Our reps vote on laws, taxes, federal things, so basically we are not a true democracy but a republic. That's all good, but I think, that is every single person in our offices are voted by popular vote, I think it is time to vote for our president by popular vote. We should vote for our president as a whole nation, not as divided states. Also, the days of Hamilton are over, we are more informed, we see the people running for presidents in our daily lives. We can make an educated vote on our own, not through no electorial college. It's time to change our system, because our system failed us in 2000 when the man that won the vote lost the election, and we are seeing how it is failing now. We are at a time when only 9 states matter because their populations are split, well other states are ignored because they swing a certain way. Well news flash, in California, there are Republicans too, don't believe me, look at our governor, or the fact that Grey Davis was the only Democrat governor since 1982, and look at what happened to him. Also, in Texas, there are Democrats, don't believe me, why do they usually vote in Democrat governors. Each state has proven to not always vote for a certain party, so why have this system when you ignore 36 million people, just to pay attention to a state with like 9 million. That not demoracy, or even a republic, it's straight up elitism.
-
Oh and I said citizens in ancient Greece. I didn't say intellectuals. Citizens would imply all those who could vote, and yes that was just Greek males. I know that, and I never said all intelligent intelligent people. Try learning how to properly derive information through reading before you *check* me.
You said "In ancient Greece EVERY citizen was completely aware of what was going on politically."
Do you have any proof of that? Are you saying that EVERY free adult male was completely aware of all the issues? Can you also compare the population of "ancient Greece" to ours?
You're right about one thing... I shouldn't have checked you.... *check mate*
-
you have to remember though how outdated that way of thinking is. The founders of this country did not trust the early Americans for a very good reason, no one at that time would see the people runnig for president, nor would they hear them, know them, have any ideas what was going on in the capital. That's why the United States is more of a republic than a democracy. Democracy, everyone votes on everything. Every law that's passed, every bill, everything. Almost like California's propositions, we vote on everything, tax increases, tax cuts, school spending, school cutting, mary jane for medical use, we vote on everything. But the United States does not work like that, we vote in our representives to vote for us in the capital. Our reps vote on laws, taxes, federal things, so basically we are not a true democracy but a republic. That's all good, but I think, that is every single person in our offices are voted by popular vote, I think it is time to vote for our president by popular vote. We should vote for our president as a whole nation, not as divided states. Also, the days of Hamilton are over, we are more informed, we see the people running for presidents in our daily lives. We can make an educated vote on our own, not through no electorial college. It's time to change our system, because our system failed us in 2000 when the man that won the vote lost the election, and we are seeing how it is failing now. We are at a time when only 9 states matter because their populations are split, well other states are ignored because they swing a certain way. Well news flash, in California, there are Republicans too, don't believe me, look at our governor, or the fact that Grey Davis was the only Democrat governor since 1982, and look at what happened to him. Also, in Texas, there are Democrats, don't believe me, why do they usually vote in Democrat governors. Each state has proven to not always vote for a certain party, so why have this system when you ignore 36 million people, just to pay attention to a state with like 9 million. That not demoracy, or even a republic, it's straight up elitism.
Did you and Shallow not attend school here or what? I started learning about this in elementary, and continued to throughout middle and high school. First of all, how the fuck can you say this is not a "democracy"? It's called REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
Then you go on to say that "we are more informed", while Shallow says that we're not as informed as they were in the past. How can you two be arguing the same thing, but give me two opposite reasons? LOLLLL you idiots are hillarious.
If each state has not always proven to vote for a certain party, then the electoral college shouldn't have too much of an effect on the people's choice, since each party has an "equal opportunity" in each state. You said it, not me.
Furthermore, what you just explained as "voting as states" is an aspect of federalism. I'm assuming you didn't learn anything about this either.
Don't they have a "U.S. History/Government for Dummies" book you guys could read? Now that I think about it, even that would be on a reading level far above the one you can understand.
-
Jamal, Jamal, Jamal.. all he can do is bringing the same stupid quote up over and over again.
Yet the quote isnt considering the topic as such, it just tries to show how I contradict myself.
And yet again, I dont contradict myself cause I dont talk about all states.
-and you ask me if I can read.
You said "The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans".
Now let's break this down.
they = the small states
always vote for republicans
Where does it say that you're referring to "some, but not all small states". Let me guess: You wrote it, but it's in another thread. LOL
where does it say I was referring to literally all states? you cant find that either.
my point was that each system leaves a few countries more out than others.. which made your argument invalid.
Are you gonna deny this later also? LOL you fuckin idiot.
And by the way, when you say "the small states", in the literal sense, that means you're referring to all small states.
For example, if I were to say "Germans are stupid", I'd be referring to all Germans; however, if I were to say "Germans like 7even are stupid", then I'd be classifying a specific group.
Now shut up and learn your place. I've proven you wrong about 12 times in 2 threads. That's a record.
lol please. I wrote countries instead of states.. dont know how that happened, but I definitely know that's not relevant.
now if, in theory, you really proved that I contradicted myself (while everybody who read through this including you knows that I actually never really did) I still "won" the discussion, as I proved your original point wrong.
as you know you cant argue against my points, you rely on making fun of things like false spelling (not in my case though.. for obvious reasons) and other secondary issues. that's not proving wrong. that's just proving that Im not perfect... when you arent either.
-
damn.. dont u get tired about arguing the same shit over and over and over and over and over on a fuck msg board...
-
Won the discussion? LOL how in the fuck? That's like saying Bush won the 1st debate. You don't win arguments by contradicting yourself, making dumb remarks, and later claiming that "someone moved my post".... LOLLLL *NEXT*
-
damn.. dont u get tired about arguing the same shit over and over and over and over and over on a fuck msg board...
tired of* arguing about*.... ;)
By the way, nobody forces you to read any of it. Secondly, why waste your time typing up that stupid comment if it has nothing to do with this thread? Do you feel left out and want somebody to argue with you?
-
Won the discussion? LOL how in the fuck? That's like saying Bush won the 1st debate. You don't win arguments by contradicting yourself, making dumb remarks, and later claiming that "someone moved my post".... LOLLLL *NEXT*
as you would say... whatever boosts your self-esteem. it's ok.
-
Won the discussion? LOL how in the fuck? That's like saying Bush won the 1st debate. You don't win arguments by contradicting yourself, making dumb remarks, and later claiming that "someone moved my post".... LOLLLL *NEXT*
as you would say... whatever boosts your self-esteem. it's ok.
Exactly. If you can't beat 'em using your own tactics, try to use theirs. You failure, get on with your life, and stop trying to dig yourself out of something you simply can't.
-
Won the discussion? LOL how in the fuck? That's like saying Bush won the 1st debate. You don't win arguments by contradicting yourself, making dumb remarks, and later claiming that "someone moved my post".... LOLLLL *NEXT*
as you would say... whatever boosts your self-esteem. it's ok.
Exactly. If you can't beat 'em using your own tactics, try to use theirs. You failure, get on with your life, and stop trying to dig yourself out of something you simply can't.
can it by any chance be the case that you dont care how worthless a post of yours is, as long as you're keeping the last word (or in your case, the last pointless attack) ...
oh well.. I dont really care...
-
You should've stopped caring a long time ago, when it was still to your advantage. Stopping to care now doesn't do much, you'll still be remembered as the idiot.
Anyways, what will it take for you to hop off my nuts? Is there anything I can say to make you feel better about yourself?
-
You should've stopped caring a long time ago, when it was still to your advantage. Stopping to care now doesn't do much, you'll still be remembered as the idiot.
Anyways, what will it take for you to hop off my nuts? Is there anything I can say to make you feel better about yourself?
Ok sorry but the bold comment really depicts you as an idiot. How can I be on your nuts, when Im only responding to you..
You attack me, and I respond. I didnt say anything wrong in the M Dogg & Doggy Threads, still you attacked me just for the hell of it, and still you claim that I am on your nuts? What's next?
So you wanna know what you can do that makes me stop sonning you.. hm.. maybe stop attacking me for no reason whatsoever? Maybe stop responding after you're obviously done? Try those.
-
Whatever helps you sleep at night... just don't feel so bad, I'm starting to feel sorry for you... I mean I keep attacking you for no reason.... :-\
Get over it lol
-
Are you expecting me to prove you wrong on the same thing more than once? Not all small states always vote Republican. If you really think that, then you're officially an idiot.
lol of course I dont think this. fuck small/huge. point is, there are certain states that always vote for a certain party.
No, I know exactly how it works. At least as good as you, probably even better. And it sucks. The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans. New York isnt considered cause they always vote for the democrats. I have the knowledge I need, so shut up.
Starts playing Lil Flip - Game Over... up next is Eminem - Go 2 Sleep....
-
you couldnt prove me wrong, and I proved you wrong in the end... so? all that you could say (like 6 times) was hey!!!!11 but 7ev7en said, all small states vote republian, cand than he said they dont!!!1 LOL!!11 "
bitch please... bow down
-
How does you contradicting yourself make you feel like you won an argument? LOL, once again your weird, twisted logic comes into play. Look, you know what... my mom told not to pick on disabled/mentally challenged people, so I apologize. Now refrain from putting yourself in a position that will enable me to son you again. Thank You, have a good night. :)
-
bitch please... bow down
LMAO... I can just imagine a German dork like you saying that in your thick accent... sounding like you got some spicy food burning your mouth while trying to talk...
... just a random thought that came to mind... anyways, good night, my child
-
how is my logic twisted, when I pointed out correctly that your responses dont even affect the argument anymore, yet keep mentioning like 8 times by now that I contradicted myself.. LOL!
btw how does it feel that a person that hasnt ever been to an english-speaking country can speak your language just as good (if not better) than you? LoL, since that's the case I dont reckon it's smart to pick on me for being a german dude