A few not so great things about America..

Squeeze a bit more out of this American theme

Over useage of the word "Awesome" They play rounders world series on their own,and call it world series!

president shrub

edit: play nice,bfr, did you post anything nice in the other thread?

McDonald's hip hop

ronno, i suspect you haven't heard all hip hop. There is some very good, progressive shite out there. Not all that bling-bling ganster crap.

Not so great:

Calling football, soccer. What other parts do this?

we've just been told to call soccer football.

We say tomatoooo You say tomayto

Let's call the whole thing off!

Missy:D

ghost rider wrote: president shrub

edit: play nice,bfr, did you post anything nice in the other thread?

Muhammed Ali....Exeptional man!That's really great from where I'm sitting Gaz! You know I'm nice to you anyhow Gaz. Now play the how shit is America game I'm hitting the sack,late here

gaansta rap then.

You foreigners are just a bunch of playa hatin' bitches. Dubya will put pop a cap in your ass if you get in our way, m'fers. Just fuckon wit ya.

Why are so many "American" products regarded boring/bland and low quality compared to Europe (because they often usually are), irregardless of where they were actually manufactured... such as "American" beers, clothes, "American" cars such as Chevy and Ford... the lost is endless. even with cool American stuff they are made "cool" because the British and Europeans like them giving them "import" cred.

DEA, micheal jackson, SUV's, Oprah, Nancy Grace, RIAA, fast food, aerosal cheese

Yer not wrong there, I dread to think what would have heppenned to me over here in the last 2 yearsm left to swell up and die probably.

I'll add funding terrorists in Ireland.

The use of the word bunch. Every American I have ever met has always won at Blackjack (how the fuck vegas is still in business I don't know!) Americans always ask how much you earn about 37 seconds after being introduced.

pumped full of drugs wrote: You foreigners are just a bunch of playa hatin' bitches. Dubya will put pop a cap in your ass if you get in our way, m'fers. Just fuckon wit ya.

Why are so many "American" products regarded boring/bland and low quality compared to Europe (because they often usually are), irregardless of where they were actually manufactured... such as "American" beers, clothes, "American" cars such as Chevy and Ford... the lost is endless. even with cool American stuff they are made "cool" because the British and Europeans like them giving them "import" cred.

I would say we, in the US, think European stuff is high quality. All the stuff we were supplied with in Iraq was from Europe, from construction vehicles to outlets, to "you name it". All the stuff was a load of junk, have a new perspective on that now.

Mind you, I'm not saying US stuff is tits, just that I had a bloated veiw of European manufactured goods in the past.

Now Japan has nice stuff. Lived there for a couple years, and everyone and everything had style, and the customer service was the best. Cost of living is through the roof, but that is where good stuff is.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: Mind you, I'm not saying US stuff is tits, just that I had a bloated veiw of European manufactured goods in the past.

Now Japan has nice stuff. Lived there for a couple years, and everyone and everything had style, and the customer service was the best. Cost of living is through the roof, but that is where good stuff is.

JHC

Yeah, Japan have some dope shit, no doubt.

Well, being that Japan spends fuck all on their military, they concentrated more on technological advances.

Oh, and shitty remakes of classic British, European etc films such as the Italian Job, Get Carter, The Wicker Man (it's in production now, but it's still going to be shite). They always set them in America 'cos American audiences haven't heard of the rest of the world.

Oh, and manufactured hip-hop shite, like Rhianna, 50 Cent, etc

Mark David Chapman, One of my earliest memories is of my mum crying when she heard.

Boatraceface wrote: Squeeze a bit more out of this American theme

Over useage of the word "Awesome" They play rounders world series on their own,and call it world series!

Retroesque wrote: Well, being that Japan spends fuck all on their military, they concentrated more on technological advances.

Oh, and shitty remakes of classic British, European etc films such as the Italian Job, Get Carter, The Wicker Man (it's in production now, but it's still going to be shite). They always set them in America 'cos American audiences haven't heard of the rest of the world.

Oh, and manufactured hip-hop shite, like Rhianna, 50 Cent, etc

The Italian Job is a great movie. And I like hip-hop. I'm going to create a hip-hop cover of Times Change as soon as I save enough for the keyboard.

The original was...I'm talking about the remake, or where you talking about the original?

OK, here's my list:

Crappy remakes of Japanese movies Finding a parking spot at Wal-Mart The fact that no one has heard of Joy Division or New Order in my neck of the woods, including college (where I buy their CDs!) The fact that they are so unethusiastic about soccer, while I'm starting to be a fan The fact that people can be in your face if you disagree about something (it's called freedom of speech and expression, people!) The fact that we are lagging behind the rest of the world on math, reading, and science

Oh, and how can I forget about this.

Prudish attitude about sex, if we are more open and honest about it instead of scaring kids away with religious superstition, our pregnancy and STD rate among kids would be lower.

Retroesque wrote: The original was...I'm talking about the remake, or where you talking about the original?

I mean the remake. Ace.

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote:

Retroesque wrote: The original was...I'm talking about the remake, or where you talking about the original?

I mean the remake. Ace.

Oh yeah, tyhe remake of The Poseidon adventure also sucks.

Now, I agree with that.

KISS

:barf:

Gene Simmons is a cunt.

EMO! I will stand by my bands!

American cars Republicans American pop Hollywood films Fast food Republicans Lack of health care Scapegoat politics Republicans Jingoism Country fuckwits Republicans

er, and Republicans. :D

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: EMO! I will stand by my bands!

Sometimes its hard to be a woman Giving all your love to just one band You'll have bad times And they'll have good times Doing things that you don't understand But if you love them you'll forgive them Even though they're hard to understand And if you love them Oh be proud of them 'Cause after all they're just a band

[are you ready for it? ....]

Stand by your band Give them your alms to cling to And something warm to come to When nights are cold and lonely Stand by your band And tell the world you love them Keep giving all the love you can Stand by your band Stand by your band And show the world you love them Keep giving all the love you can Stand by your band

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: OK, here's my list:

Finding a parking spot at Wal-Mart

The fact that they are so unethusiastic about soccer, while I'm starting to be a fan

Wal-Mart itself(plus McDonald's and Budweiser) should be at the top of this list.

No enthusiasm for soccer at UNC? What about all of those NCAA championships? Once again, what a bunch of freakin' TAR-HOLES!!!

Yea to whoever said SUV's & Oprah.

As I am paranoid and feel tagged with a "anti-America" étiquette because of my citizenship, I prefer to say nothing.

Jiphy wrote: As I am paranoid and feel tagged with a "anti-America" étiquette because of my citizenship, I prefer to say nothing.

Screw that, this is the thread to say it in!

Boatraceface wrote:

ghost rider wrote: president shrub

edit: play nice,bfr, did you post anything nice in the other thread?

Muhammed Ali....Exeptional man!That's really great from where I'm sitting Gaz! You know I'm nice to you anyhow Gaz. Now play the how shit is America game I'm hitting the sack,late here

Muhammed Ali is an exceptional man. Not many like him these days.

Tollways and constant road construction.

[darkgreen]Green[/darkgreen] wrote:

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: OK, here's my list:

Finding a parking spot at Wal-Mart

The fact that they are so unethusiastic about soccer, while I'm starting to be a fan

Wal-Mart itself(plus McDonald's and Budweiser) should be at the top of this list.

No enthusiasm for soccer at UNC? What about all of those NCAA championships? Once again, what a bunch of freakin' TAR-HOLES!!!

Yea to whoever said SUV's & Oprah.

I don't mean UNC, I mean the World Cup. US got lucky from that Italian guy's flub.

pumped full of drugs wrote:

Why are so many "American" products regarded boring/bland and low quality compared to Europe (because they often usually are), irregardless of where they were actually manufactured... such as "American" beers, clothes, "American" cars such as Chevy and Ford... the lost is endless. even with cool American stuff they are made "cool" because the British and Europeans like them giving them "import" cred.

american apologists are the worst at doing that

"oh how i wish i was from somewhere cool like London. Do you like British sitcoms"

*maim*

those jim & tammy baker style praise the lord ministries on TV. the english would never get sucked in to all that money robbing/cripple curing shite. wtf?

NEW YORK CITY

a bunch of self important nonsense. No one's actually from the city...it's full mostly cornfed midwest bumblefuck rednecks who are so impressed that they've finally "made it" and live there.

Fuck off kthnx

Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The fact they are so damn powerful.

Pretty much everything else one would want to list follows from point 2.

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

I think Vermont, RI, Maine, etc would beg to differ.

It doesn't give disproportionate influence...it gives them a seat at the table. Rather than a tryanny of the midatlantic states and northern california over the rest of the country.

fastfood

ChrissMari wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

I think Vermont, RI, Maine, etc would beg to differ.

It doesn't give disproportionate influence...it gives them a seat at the table. Rather than a tryanny of the midatlantic states and northern california over the rest of the country.

True for congress, but I disagree when it comes to presidential elections.

Shellshocker wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

I think Vermont, RI, Maine, etc would beg to differ.

It doesn't give disproportionate influence...it gives them a seat at the table. Rather than a tryanny of the midatlantic states and northern california over the rest of the country.

True for congress, but I disagree when it comes to presidential elections.

it doesn't matter if you disagree...you're wrong.

:D

Democrat politicians

wusses

Phily know-it-alls

ChrissMari wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

See, I think that would a perfectly good system. I mean, its entirely up to you Yanks what system you use, but this 'proportioned' system seems rather like the daft system the EU uses, where one Luxembourger vote is worth six Germans or Five Brits - I don't like that system at all, and if I were a Californian or a New Yorker I wouldn't like your system either. At least the EU can say its giving extra weight to actual nations with their own languages and cultures, not just states.

I prefer one person one vote, all of equal worth. True that would give big power to the big cities, but what's wrong with that? [warning: over-the-top rant ahead] What have low population density rural areas given the world? The Taliban, the electoral base of the German Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the killers of Srebrenica, the Countryside Alliance and the US religious right. While the cities produced most of the opposition to those movements.

greyhound buses. is it actually possible to travel from NY to LA on one, or do you have to make several stops?

not to mention, bus stations are filthy.

Don't all Americans have therapists to sort out their 'problems'???

404 error wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

See, I think that would a perfectly good system. I mean, its entirely up to you Yanks what system you use, but this 'proportioned' system seems rather like the daft system the EU uses, where one Luxembourger vote is worth six Germans or Five Brits - I don't like that system at all, and if I were a Californian or a New Yorker I wouldn't like your system either. At least the EU can say its giving extra weight to actual nations with their own languages and cultures, not just states.

I prefer one person one vote, all of equal worth. True that would give big power to the big cities, but what's wrong with that? [warning: over-the-top rant ahead] What have low population density rural areas given the world? The Taliban, the electoral base of the German Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the killers of Srebrenica, the Countryside Alliance and the US religious right. While the cities produced most of the opposition to those movements.

It doesn't end up one person one vote with that kind of population dispersal though. It winds up more power to popular areas and people who were born somewhere by accident of birth don't get really represented.

Also, TX and FL would also be in the list of super populous states... ;)

Brangelina. I am so fcuking sick of hearing about them and their baby. One would think it's Jesus & Mary Magdelene come back to earth and having a kid.

Oh wait, I guess that is a topic on another thread...

those 'love it or leave it' a-holes.

AgentWood wrote: those 'love it or leave it' a-holes.

You mean Republicans?

AgentWood wrote: those 'love it or leave it' a-holes.

in the eighties, it was a National Front motto... Last night I heared it again in the mouth of a "republican"... That is scary... it is not all about America it is a globalized shift of the conservatives... pas glop pas glop...

ChrissMari wrote:

404 error wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

See, I think that would a perfectly good system. I mean, its entirely up to you Yanks what system you use, but this 'proportioned' system seems rather like the daft system the EU uses, where one Luxembourger vote is worth six Germans or Five Brits - I don't like that system at all, and if I were a Californian or a New Yorker I wouldn't like your system either. At least the EU can say its giving extra weight to actual nations with their own languages and cultures, not just states.

I prefer one person one vote, all of equal worth. True that would give big power to the big cities, but what's wrong with that? [warning: over-the-top rant ahead] What have low population density rural areas given the world? The Taliban, the electoral base of the German Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the killers of Srebrenica, the Countryside Alliance and the US religious right. While the cities produced most of the opposition to those movements.

It doesn't end up one person one vote with that kind of population dispersal though. It winds up more power to popular areas and people who were born somewhere by accident of birth don't get really represented.

And in the current system, those people are overrepresented. All you have to do is be some inbred halfwit living in a state with more livestock than people, and you have more representation than people who, by accident of birth, live in a city. Yeah, that makes sense.

When you're on meth.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

404 error wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

See, I think that would a perfectly good system. I mean, its entirely up to you Yanks what system you use, but this 'proportioned' system seems rather like the daft system the EU uses, where one Luxembourger vote is worth six Germans or Five Brits - I don't like that system at all, and if I were a Californian or a New Yorker I wouldn't like your system either. At least the EU can say its giving extra weight to actual nations with their own languages and cultures, not just states.

I prefer one person one vote, all of equal worth. True that would give big power to the big cities, but what's wrong with that? [warning: over-the-top rant ahead] What have low population density rural areas given the world? The Taliban, the electoral base of the German Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the killers of Srebrenica, the Countryside Alliance and the US religious right. While the cities produced most of the opposition to those movements.

It doesn't end up one person one vote with that kind of population dispersal though. It winds up more power to popular areas and people who were born somewhere by accident of birth don't get really represented.

And in the current system, those people are overrepresented. All you have to do is be some inbred halfwit living in a state with more livestock than people, and you have more representation than people who, by accident of birth, live in a city. Yeah, that makes sense.

When you're on meth.

Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

Comrade,

Reread my last write up and it sounded a little more on the attack that intented. . .sorry.

Actually this does happen, but not through votes, but through the court system. Votes that have a majority vote and made law can be reversed by a minority of people in the supreme courts.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

Let's say the crazy green peace extremists in California say that tractors are a growing concern for the enviroment. They don't use tractors in the city, so they don't see a need for them. So they vote into law that all tractors are illegal to use.

What effects on the economy would this have on the midwest where the farming takes place and don't have enough people to vote against a city?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

Comrade,

Reread my last write up and it sounded a little more on the attack that intented. . .sorry.

Actually this does happen, but not through votes, but through the court system. Votes that have a majority vote and made law can be reversed by a minority of people in the supreme courts.

JHC

If a law is unconstitutional, it is reversed, and should be. There are procedures for amending the Constitution-- passing a statute by majority vote isn't one of them.

Now, once you get a law into Court, whether it's unconstitutional or not often depends on the political philosophy of the Justices hearing the case. And that's true whether the Justices are Democrats or Republicans. It's why we have 5-4 splits on the Suprem Court now.

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

Let's say the crazy green peace extremists in California say that tractors are a growing concern for the enviroment. They don't use tractors in the city, so they don't see a need for them. So they vote into law that all tractors are illegal to use.

What effects on the economy would this have on the midwest where the farming takes place and don't have enough people to vote against a city?

JHC

Well.... Can't happen, because the people don't vote, their Representatives do. But let's say the California delegation decides to outlaw tractors, despite the fact that vast areas of California are agricultural. They'd still have to convince enough Representatives from other states to approve the leislation.

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether some guy who votes for President should have his vote count for more than my vote. And if his vote for President should count for more than my vote for President, what is the rational basis for that?

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: the people don't vote, their Representatives do.

how true...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

Let's say the crazy green peace extremists in California say that tractors are a growing concern for the enviroment. They don't use tractors in the city, so they don't see a need for them. So they vote into law that all tractors are illegal to use.

What effects on the economy would this have on the midwest where the farming takes place and don't have enough people to vote against a city?

JHC

Well.... Can't happen, because the people don't vote, their Representatives do. But let's say the California delegation decides to outlaw tractors, despite the fact that vast areas of California are agricultural. They'd still have to convince enough Representatives from other states to approve the leislation.

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether some guy who votes for President should have his vote count for more than my vote. And if his vote for President should count for more than my vote for President, what is the rational basis for that?

Comrade, First, the idea was an example. Maybe a better example is: I don't see how someone in, let's say, Pennsylvania has the same say for issues over the border as due those in Arizona. Now Penn's say is important, as it impacts the Nation. However choices directly impact Arizona.

The Representatives vote on what the majority of their constituents vote for. . .if they don't they run the risk of not being reelected.

The large, most populated States already have a strangle hold on the country. It only takes a few of the large States to dominate an election. If it were left to polular vote, Presidential candidates would only be concerned over these few States (California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New York, Illinios, and maybe a handful of others). Other issues that impact the "lesser states" would go completely unnoticed (Oregon being one of them).

With the Electoral College, the smaller States still have an impact on a "wild card" issue, so the candidates have to be concerned over their issues as well. (But if there is a landslide issue, see how many visit North Dakota, probably none)

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they set up the Electoral College. . .it makes sure that no one gets ignored.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What rational basis is there for saying that just because some guy lives out in the middle of nowhere, his vote should count for more than my vote?

Let's say the crazy green peace extremists in California say that tractors are a growing concern for the enviroment. They don't use tractors in the city, so they don't see a need for them. So they vote into law that all tractors are illegal to use.

What effects on the economy would this have on the midwest where the farming takes place and don't have enough people to vote against a city?

JHC

Well.... Can't happen, because the people don't vote, their Representatives do. But let's say the California delegation decides to outlaw tractors, despite the fact that vast areas of California are agricultural. They'd still have to convince enough Representatives from other states to approve the leislation.

But that's not really what's at issue. What's at issue is whether some guy who votes for President should have his vote count for more than my vote. And if his vote for President should count for more than my vote for President, what is the rational basis for that?

Comrade, First, the idea was an example. Maybe a better example is: I don't see how someone in, let's say, Pennsylvania has the same say for issues over the border as due those in Arizona. Now Penn's say is important, as it impacts the Nation. However choices directly impact Arizona.

The Representatives vote on what the majority of their constituents vote for. . .if they don't they run the risk of not being reelected.

The large, most populated States already have a strangle hold on the country. It only takes a few of the large States to dominate an election. If it were left to polular vote, Presidential candidates would only be concerned over these few States (California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New York, Illinios, and maybe a handful of others). Other issues that impact the "lesser states" would go completely unnoticed (Oregon being one of them).

With the Electoral College, the smaller States still have an impact on a "wild card" issue, so the candidates have to be concerned over their issues as well. (But if there is a landslide issue, see how many visit North Dakota, probably none)

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they set up the Electoral College. . .it makes sure that no one gets ignored.

JHC

I see your points, but even the deputy director of the electoral college states in his history of the electoral college states "The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party." He also states "It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may...or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid disintegration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy." Both quotes, from the Electoral College, mind you, support my original claim that the Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses. There are some other reasons for the Electoral College, and apologists will point to these, but the bottom line is that they didn't trust "the people". This was probably wise at the time, with the US being and infant and unstable democracy, but these days it is incredibly archaic and almost embarrassing.

Shellshocker wrote:

I see your points, but even the deputy director of the electoral college states in his history of the electoral college states "The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party." He also states "It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may...or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid disintegration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy." Both quotes, from the Electoral College, mind you, support my original claim that the Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses. There are some other reasons for the Electoral College, and apologists will point to these, but the bottom line is that they didn't trust "the people". This was probably wise at the time, with the US being and infant and unstable democracy, but these days it is incredibly archaic and almost embarrassing.

Not sure how this equates to not trusting "the people".

The electoral college is done in small areas of the State. The constituents vote, and the the majority of the vote in that area decides the vote of the representative for that area. They vote and the State then votes the popular vote of the representatives. There have been a few instances where representatives have voted different than what the popular vote has been in the area, but they usually get strung up, and happens quite rarely.

Why vote representatives at all then?

Because he/she is the expert on the issues. The populace gets sold on advertisements and press, that can confuse the average voter. They vote for a representative to do the research and to have the knowledge so that they are not fooled by such political ploys. The key is to vote for a representative you think has your point of view.
Basically a stock brocker is going to understand more about the stock market than your average indiviual -or- it's like going to court with a lawyer instead of representing yourself. . .so is the same with the representative of the electoral college.

A point that shows that the electoral college isn't archaic, is with recent events. I know that people are complaining that a popular vote would have chosen a different president. However, the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote was minimal. In both cases Gore or Kerry would have barely won, if popular vote was used.
If the electoral college had chosen one candidate and popular vote had a landslide for another, then I would say it needs replacement. . .however, the difference was minimal. Also votes this close where popular vote and electoral college choose different candidates rarely happens.

The electoral college is a protection FOR the people; not to keep the people "in check"; and it keeps candidates interested in the "lesser" States issues (which would be ignored if popular vote was in place).

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

I see your points, but even the deputy director of the electoral college states in his history of the electoral college states "The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party." He also states "It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may...or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid disintegration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy." Both quotes, from the Electoral College, mind you, support my original claim that the Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses. There are some other reasons for the Electoral College, and apologists will point to these, but the bottom line is that they didn't trust "the people". This was probably wise at the time, with the US being and infant and unstable democracy, but these days it is incredibly archaic and almost embarrassing.

Not sure how this equates to not trusting "the people".

JHC

The first quote states that "knowledgeable and informed individuals" are to vote for the president. In other words, not the common people.
The second quote ("...had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy") I don't know how to put it much more directly than that, but they're saying that they wanted a safety net to "protect" them from the direct popular vote of the people. If the people voted for another Robespierre, the "knowledgeable and informed individuals" would vote for the right man, instead. As I said, there are other valid reasons for the Elecrotal College, and people who support it will point to them, but I still believe that the underlying original reason for it is to keep the common people from being able to directly vote for whomever they want to.

Shellshocker wrote:

The first quote states that "knowledgeable and informed individuals" are to vote for the president. In other words, not the common people.
The second quote ("...had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy") I don't know how to put it much more directly than that, but they're saying that they wanted a safety net to "protect" them from the direct popular vote of the people. If the people voted for another Robespierre, the "knowledgeable and informed individuals" would vote for the right man, instead. As I said, there are other valid reasons for the Elecrotal College, and people who support it will point to them, but I still believe that the underlying original reason for it is to keep the common people from being able to directly vote for whomever they want to.

SS, Somehow you missed the rest of my thread? With that thought it would be saying that people need lawyers in the courtroom because they can't be trusted to defend themselves.. . . .which is not the reason lawyers are in the courtroom. You are completely misinterpreting the quote. Read the rest of my last thread and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

The first quote states that "knowledgeable and informed individuals" are to vote for the president. In other words, not the common people.
The second quote ("...had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy") I don't know how to put it much more directly than that, but they're saying that they wanted a safety net to "protect" them from the direct popular vote of the people. If the people voted for another Robespierre, the "knowledgeable and informed individuals" would vote for the right man, instead. As I said, there are other valid reasons for the Elecrotal College, and people who support it will point to them, but I still believe that the underlying original reason for it is to keep the common people from being able to directly vote for whomever they want to.

SS, Somehow you missed the rest of my thread? With that thought it would be saying that people need lawyers in the courtroom because they can't be trusted to defend themselves.. . . .which is not the reason lawyers are in the courtroom. You are completely misinterpreting the quote. Read the rest of my last thread and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

JHC

I saw it, and I still disagree. What difference does it make if a candidate won by a little or a lot? Majority is supposed to win in a true democracy, doesn't need to be 65.25% or some "huge majority".

However, you make a very good point about the small states' issues getting notice whereas they otherwise wouldn't. My main point, however, it that the main (not the only) impetus towards the electoral system was the Founding Fathers' fear of anarchy, or something like it.

Also, the lawyer analogy is inappropriate. People need lawyers because the law is very complicated and most people haven't had three years of law school and don't understand it well enough to defend themselves. People are not legally required to have lawyers, but it would be foolish not to.

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

The first quote states that "knowledgeable and informed individuals" are to vote for the president. In other words, not the common people.
The second quote ("...had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy") I don't know how to put it much more directly than that, but they're saying that they wanted a safety net to "protect" them from the direct popular vote of the people. If the people voted for another Robespierre, the "knowledgeable and informed individuals" would vote for the right man, instead. As I said, there are other valid reasons for the Elecrotal College, and people who support it will point to them, but I still believe that the underlying original reason for it is to keep the common people from being able to directly vote for whomever they want to.

SS, Somehow you missed the rest of my thread? With that thought it would be saying that people need lawyers in the courtroom because they can't be trusted to defend themselves.. . . .which is not the reason lawyers are in the courtroom. You are completely misinterpreting the quote. Read the rest of my last thread and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

JHC

I don't know what you mean by "You are completely misinterpreting the quote." Can you explain? The quotes seem pretty straightforward to me. Finally, while it's obvious (to me anyway) that historians have said that the electoral college was set up at least in part as a safety measure against "the people" doing something crazy, it's only my theory (so far as I know) that that is the (or a) main reason it was done. I could very well be wrong there. However, I do know that the Founding Fathers admired the Spartan oligarchy rather than the Athenian true democracy, which could help explain things.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

What he's saying is that the typical liberal point of view is this person is underrepresented in society we need to give them special rights (in the form of hate crimes legislation, government Afirmative Action programs, etc) so that they can have proportional representation, but when we talk about giving a person who lives in a less populous state more proportional representation in picking the President they get mad and are against the electoral college.

BTW, the electorial college gives the same amount of voters per population in each state. A state gets one votes for each of it's senators and a vote for each of it's congressional districts. That's one vote per 630,000 people, no matter which state your in plus your two votes for the senators. It's not like people in nebraska get 2 votes per congressional district.....

This is because of some backwards idea that it favors conservatives. Listen, George Bush is NOT president because of a faulty electoral college system. He's president because some fuckers decided to fuck with the votes in Florida. The electoral college is not the reason behind the conservative acendency in this country. This has been going on well before President Bush became President Bush.

If we as liberals believe that someone deserves more justice because their attacker called them a nigger when they were getting dragged by chains to the back of a truck, then we should believe that everyone deserves a place at the table.

It's the fucking corner stone of the democratic party--EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

ChrissMari wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

What he's saying is that the typical liberal point of view is this person is underrepresented in society we need to give them special rights (in the form of hate crimes legislation, government Afirmative Action programs, etc) so that they can have proportional representation, but when we talk about giving a person who lives in a less populous state more proportional representation in picking the President they get mad and are against the electoral college.

BTW, the electorial college gives the same amount of voters per population in each state. A state gets one votes for each of it's senators and a vote for each of it's congressional districts. That's one vote per 630,000 people, no matter which state your in plus your two votes for the senators. It's not like people in nebraska get 2 votes per congressional district.....

This is because of some backwards idea that it favors conservatives. Listen, George Bush is NOT president because of a faulty electoral college system. He's president because some fuckers decided to fuck with the votes in Florida. The electoral college is not the reason behind the conservative acendency in this country. This has been going on well before President Bush became President Bush.

If we as liberals believe that someone deserves more justice because their attacker called them a nigger when they were getting dragged by chains to the back of a truck, then we should believe that everyone deserves a place at the table.

It's the fucking corner stone of the democratic party--EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

George Bush is president because some of the high-powered republicans within the christian right managed to absolutely demonize liberals in the eyes of the american public (would it be wrong for me to call them evil geniuses?). I'm a liberal who lives in the most republican voting district in the country (at least in the top five), and there are honestly people among my neighbors who believe that because I vote democrat I favor not only equal marriage rights, but actually making the "traditional american family" illegal. Put simply, the "us and them" thing isn't only big in our idiotic foreign policy, it is HUGE in internal debate, and that's scary.

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

I see your points, but even the deputy director of the electoral college states in his history of the electoral college states "The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party." He also states "It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may...or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid disintegration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect the wisdom of too direct a democracy." Both quotes, from the Electoral College, mind you, support my original claim that the Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses. There are some other reasons for the Electoral College, and apologists will point to these, but the bottom line is that they didn't trust "the people". This was probably wise at the time, with the US being and infant and unstable democracy, but these days it is incredibly archaic and almost embarrassing.

Why vote representatives at all then?

Because he/she is the expert on the issues. The populace gets sold on advertisements and press, that can confuse the average voter. They vote for a representative to do the research and to have the knowledge so that they are not fooled by such political ploys. The key is to vote for a representative you think has your point of view.
Basically a stock brocker is going to understand more about the stock market than your average indiviual -or- it's like going to court with a lawyer instead of representing yourself. . .so is the same with the representative of the electoral college.

Bollox.

When you vote for President, you're not voting for the candidate, you're voting for a slate of party members who are pledged to vote for that candidate. The only qualification required to be an elector is that you're a loyal member of your party.

How does "party loyalty" make any of the elctors "experts"?

The electoral college is a protection FOR the people;

More bollox. The electoral college was established for precisely the reasons Shellshocker has put forth.

ChrissMari wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Interesting how when minority populations don't go in the direction of your thinking, how you want them discredited. With that thought why give gays, blacks, Jews, or any minority for that matter any rights? Hypocritical thinking me thinks.

JHC

Or, if you'd like, let's try a different experiment. Since we're so concerned about empowering voters who would otherwise be outvoted by the majority, let's make each black vote worth ten white votes. That should help make sure the black voter gets heard.

What he's saying is that the typical liberal point of view is this person is underrepresented in society we need to give them special rights (in the form of hate crimes legislation, government Afirmative Action programs, etc) so that they can have proportional representation, but when we talk about giving a person who lives in a less populous state more proportional representation in picking the President they get mad and are against the electoral college.

BTW, the electorial college gives the same amount of voters per population in each state. A state gets one votes for each of it's senators and a vote for each of it's congressional districts. That's one vote per 630,000 people, no matter which state your in plus your two votes for the senators. It's not like people in nebraska get 2 votes per congressional district.....

This is because of some backwards idea that it favors conservatives. Listen, George Bush is NOT president because of a faulty electoral college system. He's president because some fuckers decided to fuck with the votes in Florida. The electoral college is not the reason behind the conservative acendency in this country. This has been going on well before President Bush became President Bush.

If we as liberals believe that someone deserves more justice because their attacker called them a nigger when they were getting dragged by chains to the back of a truck, then we should believe that everyone deserves a place at the table.

It's the fucking corner stone of the democratic party--EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

Eveyone does get a place at the table, when they cast their votes.

I think the real problem we've been discussing here is winner takes all. If you look at a political map of the U.S., the majority of the land mass is "red state." That's deceiving, because that land mass doesn't represent the majority of the population. But, with winner take all, a state that votes say, 48% Democrat and 52% Republican ends up as a "red state," and ALL of the state's electoral votes go to the Republican candidate. The reality in that situation is that 48% of the voters in that state have their votes thrown out. Not even counted in the Presidential election, which is held by the electoral college. And what rational basis is there for throwing out those minority votes? Because otherwise the state wouldn't be represented by the President?

By the way, keep an eye on California, because the Republicans have decided that if they can't actually win a Presidential election there, they're going to change the ground rules by eliminating the "winner take all" rules. If the Republicans enact their wet dream, California will vote proportionally in the electoral college. Now that seems fair, even to me, EXCEPT that other states will still be winner take all. So the Republicans will still have all the electoral votes in the red states, plus proportional electoral votes in California, because there's NO proposal on the table to make elections proportional across the United States.

Has anyone heard of the 3/5 ths rule?

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Has anyone heard of the 3/5 ths rule?

Yeah, that was to make elections fair as well.

Because all those poor slave-owning southern aristocrats would have been underrepresented in Congress if there non-voting slaves weren't counted in the population for purposes of Congressional representation. So slaves were counted as 3/5 of a white man, giving those poor slave-owning aristocrats representation in Congress that was greater than their numbers. It means that northern city-dwellers had less representation than southerners, but that's how it goes in a rigged "democracy."

What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Bollox again.

The problem the Democrats had, and still have, is that the Republicans steal elctions because they can't win a fair election.

All I see leads me to think that ruling politicians are the same everywhere... They cheat without shame to stay in power... I wonder how they dare say us to behave when they act with such total impunity...

And, from the country which likes to show to the rest of the world how an efficient Democracy (the top in matters of democracy) should run, well... as it is said in the subject, it is not so great...

Bomb the French senate. It is a gathering of mafiosi... These are the only ones we do not elect directly. Being there, they cannot be charged with anything. Chirac changed the law in order to make a former President a senator till the last day of his life... and he knew what he did for he is the most unpopular President since 1958...I can tell you that the senators were not the ones who voted against the end of death penalty... but all they deserve is the guillotine...

That said by a very tolerant person who is strictly against the use of this item...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Bollox again.

The problem the Democrats had, and still have, is that the Republicans steal elctions because they can't win a fair election.

ummmm.. . . Comrade. . . .have you been watching any news talk shows (CNN , Fox, etc.)? The "unified front' or lack there of in the Democratic party has been noted quite substantially by those in the Democratic party. It has also been talked quite alot on the philosophies of the two parties:

Democrates - attack the opposing candidates weak points as much as they can. . .try to gloss over thier candidates weak points,and emphasize their strong points.

Republicans - attack the opposing candidates strong points as much as they can. . .try to empower their candidates weak points with morality.

This has been discussed quite thouroghly, and how the Democrates need to change their philosophy if they are to win the upcoming election.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: Democrates - attack the opposing candidates weak points as much as they can. . .try to gloss over thier candidates weak points,and emphasize their strong points.

Republicans - attack the opposing candidates strong points as much as they can. . .try to empower their candidates weak points with morality.

This is the same shit everywhere. Instead of that and hijacking our intelligence, they should propose alternatives for a living...

They behave like kids in kindergarten but with complicated words in order to make you feel that they are the elite of the country and that they do not belong to the same world than you and me...

In my opinion, that is why they endlessly try to lower cultural knowledge of the masses...

And I fear political systems with only two major parties like it was the "good" and the "bad". We should have the choice between at least six or eight different movements... I like the difference between UK and US English which is stand (UK) and run (US) for elections. From outside, the duality of the Democrats and Republicans seems to be a thing where nothing moves (so why the use of the verb "run" ?), just like an endlessly war within tranchées.

Yes, I agree. The way politics are in America it's like kindegarten. Wait scratch that, junior high.

Free Radical wrote:

I'm a liberal who lives in the most republican voting district in the country (at least in the top five), and there are honestly people among my neighbors who believe that because I vote democrat I favor not only equal marriage rights, but actually making the "traditional american family" illegal. Put simply, the "us and them" thing isn't only big in our idiotic foreign policy, it is HUGE in internal debate, and that's scary.

You need to move, dude!

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Huh??? "What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today." No. For instance, as Comrade says, 48% of people in any given state have their votes thrown out when the person they voted for doesn't get the majority of votes in their state. I live in NY, which voted overwhelmingly for Kerry in the last election. One of my coworkers voted for Bush and complained that he wasted his vote. This is because he knew that Kerry was going to win NY and take ALL of NY's electoral votes. Thus, my friend was essentially correct.

"Kerry was a poor choice. period." Kerry GOT MORE VOTES than Bush!! Hardly sounds like a poor choice to me.

americans talking about politics!!!

Jiphy wrote: All I see leads me to think that ruling politicians are the same everywhere... They cheat without shame to stay in power... I wonder how they dare say us to behave when they act with such total impunity...

And, from the country which likes to show to the rest of the world how an efficient Democracy (the top in matters of democracy) should run, well... as it is said in the subject, it is not so great...

It seems like politicians in every country will do dishonest things to stay in power, some slightly dishonets, some very dishonest. Democrats, Republicans, Americans, French, Nigerian, none are above reproach. I think that the American Foundin Fathers, however, were by and large very honest and honorable people who made decisions for the good of the country. If they weren't, the American Republic would not have survived intact to this day.

Jiphy wrote: Bomb the French senate. It is a gathering of mafiosi... These are the only ones we do not elect directly. Being there, they cannot be charged with anything. Chirac changed the law in order to make a former President a senator till the last day of his life... and he knew what he did for he is the most unpopular President since 1958...I can tell you that the senators were not the ones who voted against the end of death penalty... but all they deserve is the guillotine...

That said by a very tolerant person who is strictly against the use of this item...

Wow, I didn't realize senators there weren't elected. They therefore have no accountability to the people. Very bad. And I thought only Italian politics was a gathering place for the mafiosa.

Jiphy wrote:

And I fear political systems with only two major parties like it was the "good" and the "bad". We should have the choice between at least six or eight different movements... I like the difference between UK and US English which is stand (UK) and run (US) for elections. From outside, the duality of the Democrats and Republicans seems to be a thing where nothing moves (so why the use of the verb "run" ?), just like an endlessly war within tranchées.

While a two political party system doesn't allow for as many viewpoints as a multiple party system, a multiparty system means there is almost never a majority, and parties have to waste a lot of time trying to form coalitions with other parties to get anything done. It seems to me that it would be even tougher to get things done than with a two party system.

Also, technically, the US doesn't have a two party system. Any number of parties are allowed to run for office and win seat. However, in reality, that never happens.

I agree that politicians tend to act like children. Mudslinging on both sides and anyone that thinke their party is above such tactics is living in a fantasy land.

So don't tell me about politics...

SHEDi xxx

J.A.K wrote: americans talking about politics!!!

Remember the title of the thread. :)

68Pontiac wrote:

This has been discussed quite thouroghly, and how the Democrates need to change their philosophy if they are to win the upcoming election. JHC

You may be right. Considering how bad the Republicans have been fucking up this country and the world, and yet they they still win elecions, the Democrats clearly need to change their tactics.

Shellshocker wrote:

"Kerry was a poor choice. period." Kerry GOT MORE VOTES than Bush!! Hardly sounds like a poor choice to me.

My point on this SS, is that before the election was coming up, almost 50% of the population was ready to go to the polls simply to vote against Bush. There was an estimated 15% that were undecided. All someone needed to do was be a likable person. . .but Kerry was simply too stiff. It was an election that should have been a landslide for Democrates. . .that Kerry won popular vote by a hair was pathetic.

I'm actually glad he isn't President. Look at what he's trying to push in the Senate right now. . .to pull ALL of our troops out of Iraq by next year.

Iraq may be a mess right now, but pull everyone out and civil war will explode and it will be a hotbed cesspool for many years to come, 10x worse than it is today.

The problem is we are getting poor choices for President on both sides.

As for the "forgotten voters" mentioned, trust me I feel it. I'm a conservative in California. . .talk about it being pointless for me to vote. regardless, I still think the Electoral college is the best way to handle business.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

"Kerry was a poor choice. period." Kerry GOT MORE VOTES than Bush!! Hardly sounds like a poor choice to me.

My point on this SS, is that before the election was coming up, almost 50% of the population was ready to go to the polls simply to vote against Bush. There was an estimated 15% that were undecided. All someone needed to do was be a likable person. . .but Kerry was simply too stiff. It was an election that should have been a landslide for Democrates. . .that Kerry won popular vote by a hair was pathetic.

I'm actually glad he isn't President. Look at what he's trying to push in the Senate right now. . .to pull ALL of our troops out of Iraq by next year.

Iraq may be a mess right now, but pull everyone out and civil war will explode and it will be a hotbed cesspool for many years to come, 10x worse than it is today.

The problem is we are getting poor choices for President on both sides.

As for the "forgotten voters" mentioned, trust me I feel it. I'm a conservative in California. . .talk about it being pointless for me to vote. regardless, I still think the Electoral college is the best way to handle business.

JHC

Yeah, the last two dem candidates have been a bit lacking in the personality department (let's not forget Gore). Too bad people care more about how warm & fuzzy or telegenic a candidate is rather than how good a job he will do. I was very much against invading Iraq in the first place (not just one of these idiots who is against it now because things aren't going well) but I do have to agree that now that we're there, and now that we've deposed the previous government, we shouldn't just up and leave. Let's do the job right rather than half assed, or two years after we leave the place will probably be an even bigger mess than it was when Sadam was in power. I don't like a predetermined pullout date (sounds real nice come election time though) because you're telling the insurgents "hey, just hold out another six months and we'll be gone". I don't see the sense in that.

Shellshocker wrote: Yeah, the last two dem candidates have been a bit lacking in the personality department (let's not forget Gore). Too bad people care more about how warm & fuzzy or telegenic a candidate is rather than how good a job he will do. I was very much against invading Iraq in the first place (not just one of these idiots who is against it now because things aren't going well) but I do have to agree that now that we're there, and now that we've deposed the previous government, we shouldn't just up and leave. Let's do the job right rather than half assed, or two years after we leave the place will probably be an even bigger mess than it was when Sadam was in power. I don't like a predetermined pullout date (sounds real nice come election time though) because you're telling the insurgents "hey, just hold out another six months and we'll be gone". I don't see the sense in that.

I think its due to so much press coverage. Politicians have to look good for the camera's eye. In my opinion, I think the press believes they are the 5th branch of the government. . .but unlike the other four, there is no one really watching over them. . .and they're screwing alot of things up worse than they already are.

As for the pull-out, I completely agree.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

I think its due to so much press coverage. Politicians have to look good for the camera's eye. In my opinion, I think the press believes they are the 5th branch of the government. . .but unlike the other four, there is no one really watching over them. . .and they're screwing alot of things up worse than they already are.

As for the pull-out, I completely agree.

JHC

Not totally germane to this conversation, but one thing that pisses me off about the press is when they release a state secret, compromising national security, just for the sake of a "scoop". I know we have freedom of the prss, which I support, but one would hope that they would exercise some good judgement sometimes and thing about something other than selling newspapers.

As far as the press screwing things up worse, well, I guess people don't want to read about the things that are going well, they only want to read about bad, "juicy" things. Prison abuse is much more interesting than hearing about the people there that actually appreciate our presence (not that we shouldn't have the prison abuses brought to light, but a few feel good stories thrown in, in proportion to what is really happening in Iraq, would be nice) Maybe the public is slightly to blame for their taste in news.

I think part of our issue in the US is the press is driven by marketing. Everyone wants you to watch thier news, so that they can get more expesive commercial space, which equals more money.

If we could get the press on a more PBS style network, where marketing doesn't come into play, then we might get better news. But this has it's own issues, as BBC is this way (I think), and they have their problems as well.

One thing that annoys me is when reporters go into the story with a conclusion before the facts are in. I want news to give me facts, unsquewed by their political stance or personal view.

Probably asking for too much though.

JHC

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Bollox again.

The problem the Democrats had, and still have, is that the Republicans steal elctions because they can't win a fair election.

Dear Comrade,

We've all been treated to links and C&P's regarding how Republicans steal elections by such impartial observers as Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Rolling Stone.

However, I'd like to hear these election stealing theories in your own words. I don't need a footnoted and annotated novel. Just think of it as me and you having a coversation over suds (you with beer so dark you could use it to view a solar eclipse and me with my piss-water Michelob Ultra).

Regards,

Tex

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: What I am noticing is not so much an anger towards the electoral college but a sniveling of "they stole the election" that still exists today.

Erase whether or not you or I like Bush. The main reason that Democrates have not won the presidential election is because of the people they are choosing as their primary. Gore was only chosen as they thought people wanted the "Clinton years" to extend another 4 years; not because HE was a strong candidate. The one person that killed Gore, wasn't Bush, it was Nader. He took much of the Liberal vote from the Democrates. . .enough that would have pushed it towards Gore's favor.

Kerry was a poor choice. period. Half the population was ready to go to the polls and vote for anyone, as long as it wasn't Bush. The Democrates put on a poor show, and the election should not have been close at all. All they had to do was get someone that the people "liked more than Bush". . .but that didn't happen.

The problem the democrates have is they do NOT have a unified front. Look at the stand in the Senate and the house on the "time-period for pulling out of Iraq" being debated right now. The Republicans have a strong front that we should stay the course. . .only a few minor Republicans disagree. The Democratic party is all over the map, you have Kerry who wants to pull out everybody by next year, you have others that want a hard deadline (but longer than 1 year) and yet others that share the same veiw as the Republicans. The Democrates will loose again, until they get a unified front.

JHC

Bollox again.

The problem the Democrats had, and still have, is that the Republicans steal elctions because they can't win a fair election.

Dear Comrade,

We've all been treated to links and C&P's regarding how Republicans steal elections by such impartial observers as Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Rolling Stone.

However, I'd like to hear these election stealing theories in your own words. I don't need a footnoted and annotated novel. Just think of it as me and you having a coversation over suds (you with beer so dark you could use it to view a solar eclipse and me with my piss-water Michelob Ultra).

Regards,

Tex

I've been the victim of "stolen" elections from opposition party twice on municipal elections. I use stolen in quotes because I think it is what the armchair observer would count as stolen--i'd just call it smart politics and in the case of the second voter tampering.

The first was morally wrong and underhanded but perfectly legal and therefore except for the fact that one of the candidates on my slate lost, I really couldn't fault them. I could however fault my people for taking "the high road". Fuck the high road. Plz to win. Fucking idealists have no place in politics haha

My Name Is John Barnes wrote: I love my country, but fear my government...there, how is that???

Interestingly enough, I felt the same way from 1992 to 2000.

Tex wrote:

My Name Is John Barnes wrote: I love my country, but fear my government...there, how is that???

Interestingly enough, I felt the same way from 1992 to 2000.

Me too.. only I still fear it..

Just Theory-wise, not fucking rhetoric and emotions and blah blah blah, this administration is as much in our personal lives as those of my fellow lefties who can not understand things like civil liberties, personal freedom, and fiscal responsibility.

It's not an anti-republican thing. Maybe it's an anti-american thing where the right of our country is so concerned with being socially conservative that they forget about the other things that make one conservative. It's not all about god and shooting things. Ugh. It's about government staying the eff out and treating people equally no matter what their status is.

The things that the left-libertarian in me appreciates.

ChrissMari wrote:

Tex wrote:

My Name Is John Barnes wrote: I love my country, but fear my government...there, how is that???

Interestingly enough, I felt the same way from 1992 to 2000.

Me too.. only I still fear it..

Just Theory-wise, not fucking rhetoric and emotions and blah blah blah, this administration is as much in our personal lives as those of my fellow lefties who can not understand things like civil liberties, personal freedom, and fiscal responsibility.

It's not an anti-republican thing. Maybe it's an anti-american thing where the right of our country is so concerned with being socially conservative that they forget about the other things that make one conservative. It's not all about god and shooting things. Ugh. It's about government staying the eff out and treating people equally no matter what their status is.

The things that the left-libertarian in me appreciates.

Chriss, Hear you exactly. I agree that both sides now seem to be encroaching in our civil liberties, just at different angles. I state I'm conservative, but more in a "Thomas Jefferson" way. I believe in his ideals, and not so much any party out there. Seems we've gone away from his ideals on either side. Seems that slowly, but surely, the Hamilton way of government is coming into power.

JHC

There's nothing "conservative" about the modern conservative movement. Socially conservative, yeah, but otherwise they're just as guilty of "big government" as the liberals they decry who instituted measures in the 1960s (measures which, by the way, helped advance the civil rights of blacks light years from where they'd been just a decade before, and opened the door for the more progressive times that we'd like to think we live in).

They justify it with "we were attacked on 9/11", thus we have to grant government powers during wartime that would be unimaginable in peacetime. The only problem with that is, when and if the "war on Terror" is over, who's to say the gov't will rescind the powers we as a people have granted them to keep us safe?

I think no matter what side of the spectrum you fall under, you have to admit that things are worse under Bush than they were under Clinton, in the area of civil rights, freedom of speech, and social issues. The fact is, Bush and his people don't give a shit about anything but increasing their power base. I'm sorry, but any government that actively advocates unrestricted wiretapping needs to be thrown over the coals.

Now watch the black helicopters start circling my house

Taboo # 7 wrote: There's nothing "conservative" about the modern conservative movement. Socially conservative, yeah, but otherwise they're just as guilty of "big government" as the liberals they decry who instituted measures in the 1960s (measures which, by the way, helped advance the civil rights of blacks light years from where they'd been just a decade before, and opened the door for the more progressive times that we'd like to think we live in).

They justify it with "we were attacked on 9/11", thus we have to grant government powers during wartime that would be unimaginable in peacetime. The only problem with that is, when and if the "war on Terror" is over, who's to say the gov't will rescind the powers we as a people have granted them to keep us safe?

I think no matter what side of the spectrum you fall under, you have to admit that things are worse under Bush than they were under Clinton, in the area of civil rights, freedom of speech, and social issues. The fact is, Bush and his people don't give a shit about anything but increasing their power base. I'm sorry, but any government that actively advocates unrestricted wiretapping needs to be thrown over the coals.

Now watch the black helicopters start circling my house

Please state how freedom of speech has been resticted in any way. For goodness sakes, the nyt can publish the details of ongoing operations in the was on terror. And what happened? Soilders didn't kick down the doors to their offices. No one was hauled away in cuffs. The worse that happend was the administration basically called them a bunch of worthless coc*suc*ers. The nyt hasn't even had it's credentials pulled from the White House press corps!

It's interesting to note where you hear (or read) people talk about the loss of free speech. It's not in hushed tones in someone's basement at 2am. It's usually over a loudspeaker at some A.N.S.W.E.R. rally or on the internet.