McCain?

[OuroborosChoked]

As for why the electoral college is used only for presidential elections, it was mainly less of a hassle to count electoral votes as opposed to an entire population's worth of votes back in the day where things like 'The Cotton Gin' were considered innovative. It's not used in other votes because the people would have chosen a representative of their state who would agree with them and vote on their behalf.

I think you just admitted that the electoral college is out of date.

There's no use for it today.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Ah. Sorry. I'm not thinking strait right now.

It's required that the people inform themselves on the issues for this system to work, but it doesn't mean that they fully inform themselves. I said 'It doesn't always make them right' because if the majority is uninformed and vote on a whim, then they are not necessarily making the right decision.

Ah, the reason I didn't acknowledge that... who decides what the "right" choice is?

I don't know. Whoever looks back from the future and either calls it as a bad decision or a good one.

So only people from the future should vote? I mean, they're the ones who'll know which was the "right" decision... AND they'd be the most informed.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

So only people from the future should vote? I mean, they're the ones who'll know which was the "right" decision... AND they'd be the most informed.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

As for why the electoral college is used only for presidential elections, it was mainly less of a hassle to count electoral votes as opposed to an entire population's worth of votes back in the day where things like 'The Cotton Gin' were considered innovative. It's not used in other votes because the people would have chosen a representative of their state who would agree with them and vote on their behalf.

I think you just admitted that the electoral college is out of date.

There's no use for it today.

There is a use for it, considering that it's used to elect the president, however, it isn't required anymore.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

As for why the electoral college is used only for presidential elections, it was mainly less of a hassle to count electoral votes as opposed to an entire population's worth of votes back in the day where things like 'The Cotton Gin' were considered innovative. It's not used in other votes because the people would have chosen a representative of their state who would agree with them and vote on their behalf.

I think you just admitted that the electoral college is out of date.

There's no use for it today.

There is a use for it, considering that it's used to elect the president, however, it isn't required anymore.

So you agree that we don't need it anymore? So why do we have it still?

I say it's time for a change.

Get rid of the electoral college.

 

[werepossum]

I'd be willing to bet the majority of people in here have never been in a "hostile situation" in the Middle East.

*waits for them to pretend as if it doesn't matter in the BIG picture*

McCain hasn't.
Obama hasn't.
Palin hasn't.
Biden hasn't.

And we all know about McCain's Baghdad market stroll... with armored escort and Apache helicopters overhead. Hell, that's how I go shopping all the time!

I won't support McCain because:
1. Palin is a scary, irresponsible choice which only reflects on McCain's lack of judgement. Is he really putting country first picking someone like Palin?
2. McCain's supporters are racists, bigots, and igorant fucks who continue to chant debunked "facts". All that shit like "Obama is only one letter away from Osama" and "Obama's a secret muslim". What the fuck is a "secret muslim" anyway? And what does that even matter? Muslim does not equal TERRORIST. A vote for McCain is a vote for these kinds of people having a voice in the highest office this country has.
3. McCain's campaign is a campaign based on fear. He wants us to be afraid. Afraid of "that guy". Afraid of foreignness. Afraid of change. Afraid of truth. He plays to peoples hatred and fears. I don't want that in a president.
4. The lies. McCain is beating the old Republican drum that DEMOCRATZ ALWAYZ RAZE TAXES!!. Under Obama's tax plan (yes, this has been explained over and over again), most Americans will SAVE MONEY. Under McCain's plan, the lower-income families will be even more heavily taxed than they are under Bush. Sorry, I can't afford to be taxed MORE, McCain.

That's just 4 reasons. For the sake of brevity, I'll stop here.

Let's see, McCain (who adopted a black daughter and hasn't made a big deal about it) is by extension racist, whilst Obama who wrote in his first book "White folks' greed runs a world in need" is obviously NOT a racist. And McCain is going to raise taxes, whilst Obama is going to lower taxes.

This shows why Obama will be elected president - we have become a whiny bunch of idiots who deserve no better.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

As for why the electoral college is used only for presidential elections, it was mainly less of a hassle to count electoral votes as opposed to an entire population's worth of votes back in the day where things like 'The Cotton Gin' were considered innovative. It's not used in other votes because the people would have chosen a representative of their state who would agree with them and vote on their behalf.

I think you just admitted that the electoral college is out of date.

There's no use for it today.

There is a use for it, considering that it's used to elect the president, however, it isn't required anymore.

So you agree that we don't need it anymore? So why do we have it still?

I say it's time for a change.

Get rid of the electoral college.

Sure. Why not?

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Let's see, McCain (who adopted a black daughter and hasn't made a big deal about it) is by extension racist, whilst Obama who wrote in his first book "White folks' greed runs a world in need" is obviously NOT a racist.

I didn't say a word about McCain and racism. I talked about his followers. Try reading.

And McCain is going to raise taxes, whilst Obama is going to lower taxes.

Yup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITT75RROgQ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaIjHWtKtwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BDyz4J-QA
EDIT: One more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNyNv_UfFUo

This shows why Obama will be elected president - we have become a whiny bunch of idiots who deserve no better.

Well, I can't speak for all of us... but I'm not whining... and I'm not an idiot. You must be speaking for yourself, then... you DID say "we", after all...

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

What terrifies me as an American is the lack of knowledge people actually have on the issues. So many people side with McCain not knowing that he votes 90% of the time with Bush (its a fact look it up).

It's 95 percent in 2007.
If you're going to start chastising others for their ignorance, at least get your examples straight.

 

[cainx10a]

Let's see, McCain (who adopted a black daughter and hasn't made a big deal about it) is by extension racist, whilst Obama who wrote in his first book "White folks' greed runs a world in need" is obviously NOT a racist.

I didn't say a word about McCain and racism. I talked about his followers. Try reading.

And McCain is going to raise taxes, whilst Obama is going to lower taxes.

Yup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITT75RROgQ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaIjHWtKtwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BDyz4J-QA
EDIT: One more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNyNv_UfFUo

This shows why Obama will be elected president - we have become a whiny bunch of idiots who deserve no better.

Well, I can't speak for all of us... but I'm not whining... and I'm not an idiot. You must be speaking for yourself, then... you DID say "we", after all...

Amen, brother.

 

[jdguy]

on average it is about 90% I know more recently its more but I whent with the average. Also ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, the problem is when that ignorance turns to stupidity due to willfulness.

I'm more upset about the strait talk being mostly lies and the truth being ignored. I like truthyness as much as the next guy but... would rather have it be in jest.

 

[Fret098]

McCain actually has the potential to do something.
Obama just waves his hand like a celeberity. Couldn't they have at least gotten someone like Brad Pitt to do that? Hell it'd be like electing the same man...

On a fair note, the reason people despise Bush and McCain is because they fail to see the good accomplished by the Bush administration. We took an enemy that wanted to attack us and moved the target from our homeland to a location in the Middle East. Sorry that we don't have time to spend money on "social programs" due to an economy that was bound to collapse regardless if we had gone to war, when the previous administration failed to properly take care of the leftovers Bush had to deal with.

So what if he did lie?

You'd stutter too if you had so many countries which wished to wipe your country off the face of the earth without justification.

hmmm just one thing to say bout this post, LOL!!!!!!!!! /cough excuse me

 

[Saskwach]

'd like to see the whole record over Bush's 8 years.

It used to be lower, I believe in 2005 being 67 percent.

Compared to Obama's record of 40% it's safe to say, then, that while McCain and Bush agree on a lot of things they are still very different.

I seem to remember some analysis of his views changing mightily between the 2004 and 2008 Republican races. This would tell us not that McCain is like Bush, but that he's sold out some of his principles for the big chair. Those are two different things.

How?
Like acceleration and gravity, although different things, they are indistinguishable.

They are quite different. One conclusion tells you that he is indeed W in disguise, and the other, a politician who would misrepresent himself to get to the big job (sad, but not a surprise). The first conclusion also tells you to expect more of the same; the second says that he might change his tune once he's in office and doesn't have to worry so much about winning with the base.

 

[Saskwach]

There's another reason--it gives greater representation to those who live in small states.

See, if we had a direct, majority-of-the-voters election, then politicians would only care about issues that effect big (population) states. In the Electoral College system, you get (I think) an Elector for each member of Congress your state has. And each state--no matter how big or small--gets two Senators.

So even if one state has twice the population of another state, it won't get twice the influence on the election in the Electoral College because each state gets two for their Senators.

So sure--we could get rid of it and put something else in place--and maybe that something will be better--but we can't say that getting rid of it has no repercussions.

I'd have to agree with that.
I'd also add, living as I do in a country where federalism is a dead argument, that any moves towards weakening the states should be very carefully examined. People often see state power as nothing but a way for the many to be braked by the few, but federalism is an important principle for exactly that reason, and because a stronger federal government is a nightmare in which discontent takes longer to reach the halls of power.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

I'm not anti-Mccain, I'm anti Palin, and we all know if we elect Mccain she'll get at least 2 years as President.

Hey, don't diss Palin's credentials. I mean, she can see Russia from her house! When you have that as your sole qualification, what else do you need?

I like how the left like to ignore the fact that she was a mayor and a governor. That's like suggesting that Obama's only qualification is that he lived in Indonesia.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

There's another reason--it gives greater representation to those who live in small states.

See, if we had a direct, majority-of-the-voters election, then politicians would only care about issues that effect big (population) states. In the Electoral College system, you get (I think) an Elector for each member of Congress your state has. And each state--no matter how big or small--gets two Senators.

So even if one state has twice the population of another state, it won't get twice the influence on the election in the Electoral College because each state gets two for their Senators.

So sure--we could get rid of it and put something else in place--and maybe that something will be better--but we can't say that getting rid of it has no repercussions.

I'd have to agree with that.
I'd also add that, living as I do in a country where federalism is a dead argument, any moves towards weakening the states should be very carefully examined. People often see state power as nothing but a way for the many to be braked by the few, but federalism is an important principle for exactly that reason, and because a stronger federal government is a nightmare in which discontent takes longer to reach the halls of power.

There must be something I'm not getting: why does it matter where people live? It's not a local election. It's an election for the president. How would someone voting for McCain in Los Angeles matter when it's counted just the same as a vote for Obama from Texas? I'm talking about nationwide totals, here. Not state-by-state one person, one vote. That doesn't make any sense. Forget about the concept of winning states. With one person, one vote, you win the country or you lose the election.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

I'm not anti-Mccain, I'm anti Palin, and we all know if we elect Mccain she'll get at least 2 years as President.

Hey, don't diss Palin's credentials. I mean, she can see Russia from her house! When you have that as your sole qualification, what else do you need?

I like how the left like to ignore the fact that she was a mayor and a governor. That's like suggesting that Obama's only qualification is that he lived in Indonesia.

Because being governor for less than two years of the least populous state per square mile is better experience than being, I dunno... Senator for three years and on the Illinois state senate for the seven years before that?

Funny how we can ignore things, isn't it?

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

There's another reason--it gives greater representation to those who live in small states.

See, if we had a direct, majority-of-the-voters election, then politicians would only care about issues that effect big (population) states. In the Electoral College system, you get (I think) an Elector for each member of Congress your state has. And each state--no matter how big or small--gets two Senators.

So even if one state has twice the population of another state, it won't get twice the influence on the election in the Electoral College because each state gets two for their Senators.

So sure--we could get rid of it and put something else in place--and maybe that something will be better--but we can't say that getting rid of it has no repercussions.

I'd have to agree with that.
I'd also add that, living as I do in a country where federalism is a dead argument, any moves towards weakening the states should be very carefully examined. People often see state power as nothing but a way for the many to be braked by the few, but federalism is an important principle for exactly that reason, and because a stronger federal government is a nightmare in which discontent takes longer to reach the halls of power.

There must be something I'm not getting: why does it matter where people live? It's not a local election. It's an election for the president. How would someone voting for McCain in Los Angeles matter when it's counted just the same as a vote for Obama from Texas? I'm talking about nationwide totals, here. Not state-by-state one person, one vote. That doesn't make any sense. Forget about the concept of winning states. With one person, one vote, you win the country or you lose the election.

I'm also confused about this - the amount of electoral votes a state gets is based on the number of congressmen from the state, isn't it? These numbers are based on population, so it seems like this is a useless practice that allows people to win elections without winning the highest number of votes.

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

I'm not anti-Mccain, I'm anti Palin, and we all know if we elect Mccain she'll get at least 2 years as President.

Hey, don't diss Palin's credentials. I mean, she can see Russia from her house! When you have that as your sole qualification, what else do you need?

I like how the left like to ignore the fact that she was a mayor and a governor. That's like suggesting that Obama's only qualification is that he lived in Indonesia.

Because being governor for less than two years of the least populous state per square mile is better experience than being, I dunno... Senator for three years?

Being a mayor and a governor gives her more executive experience than Obama, yes. The presidency is an EXECUTIVE position, not a legislative one. And if you want to talk about numbers, it should be noted Obama was only present in the senate for something like 145 days total. There's arguments to be made for Obama, but experience isn't one of them.