No matter who wins, Clinton, McCain, or Obama, nobody will be able to clean up that shitload of mess that Bush left. It would take decades to bring the country back in it's too feet and heading in the right direction.
At least we're close to getting rid of the only guy who would be a worst president than Bush...
Huckabee
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]No matter who wins, Clinton, McCain, or Obama, nobody will be able to clean up that shitload of mess that Bush left. It would take decades to bring the country back in it's too feet and heading in the right direction.
At least we're close to getting rid of the only guy who would be a worst president than Bush...
Huckabee [/QUOTE]
Jingles, you are so right.
My concern about McCain over Clinton or Obama, though, is that there will be no hope of balance in the Supreme Court once he starts appointing judges. With the right-wing extremists bush has already settled in there, we need a democrat to select judges who swing closer to the left.
At least we're close to getting rid of the only guy who would be a worst president than Bush...
Huckabee [/QUOTE]
Jingles, you are so right.
My concern about McCain over Clinton or Obama, though, is that there will be no hope of balance in the Supreme Court once he starts appointing judges. With the right-wing extremists bush has already settled in there, we need a democrat to select judges who swing closer to the left.
"the President on the US is a figurehead, and Obama will put on the best face for this country for the next 8 years."
That is totally wrong. The President is not a figurehead, he is the most powerful person in the world. The political views of the future President are very important.
One real good thing about Obama is that he has sparked a great political interest in the American youth which is new and very good and important. The views of Obama seem a bit blurry and he does not have that much experience, i.e. he will need people to rely on and these people are not up for election. It seems that his best and most liked feature is his inexperience because he is not yet infected with the "Washington corruption". However, if I had to choose between a nice looking, clean pilot with zero experience and an old dirty, cynical pilot with thousand hours of flight experience I would probably choose the plane navigated by the old cynic :)
About the Electoral College: it's true that the President is not elected by popular vote. People vote for members of the EC by state, i.e. in a state with fewer inhabitants your vote counts more because fewer people are enough to elect one member into the EC. If you live in a small state your vote can count up to 4 times as much as the vote of a citizen in a big state like California, for example. The winner-takes-it-all rule (majority vote) means that all votes in a state go to the EC members representing the candidate with the majority vote in that state while the votes for the other candidate not not count at all. For example President Kennedy won the majority of the EC although Nixon won the popular vote because Nixon won some smaller states with a very high majority while Kennedy won California with only a small majority but took all EC votes, anyway.
That is totally wrong. The President is not a figurehead, he is the most powerful person in the world. The political views of the future President are very important.
One real good thing about Obama is that he has sparked a great political interest in the American youth which is new and very good and important. The views of Obama seem a bit blurry and he does not have that much experience, i.e. he will need people to rely on and these people are not up for election. It seems that his best and most liked feature is his inexperience because he is not yet infected with the "Washington corruption". However, if I had to choose between a nice looking, clean pilot with zero experience and an old dirty, cynical pilot with thousand hours of flight experience I would probably choose the plane navigated by the old cynic :)
About the Electoral College: it's true that the President is not elected by popular vote. People vote for members of the EC by state, i.e. in a state with fewer inhabitants your vote counts more because fewer people are enough to elect one member into the EC. If you live in a small state your vote can count up to 4 times as much as the vote of a citizen in a big state like California, for example. The winner-takes-it-all rule (majority vote) means that all votes in a state go to the EC members representing the candidate with the majority vote in that state while the votes for the other candidate not not count at all. For example President Kennedy won the majority of the EC although Nixon won the popular vote because Nixon won some smaller states with a very high majority while Kennedy won California with only a small majority but took all EC votes, anyway.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
For example President Kennedy won the majority of the EC although Nixon won the popular vote because Nixon won some smaller states with a very high majority while Kennedy won California with only a small majority but took all EC votes, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Your overall point is correct, of course, but the specific example is off, YV. Kennedy won both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
Only twice in the US has the president won the EC and not the popular vote - 1876 and 2000. In 1824, the winner of the popular vote (Andrew Jackson) did not win the EC, but no one won a majority of the EC that year. As a result, the 2nd place finisher eventually won after the vote went to the House of Representatives. This concludes the history lesson for today :)
For example President Kennedy won the majority of the EC although Nixon won the popular vote because Nixon won some smaller states with a very high majority while Kennedy won California with only a small majority but took all EC votes, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Your overall point is correct, of course, but the specific example is off, YV. Kennedy won both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
Only twice in the US has the president won the EC and not the popular vote - 1876 and 2000. In 1824, the winner of the popular vote (Andrew Jackson) did not win the EC, but no one won a majority of the EC that year. As a result, the 2nd place finisher eventually won after the vote went to the House of Representatives. This concludes the history lesson for today :)
Thanks YourValentine! Politics are so hard to understand :/ and they frustrate me. It's nice to have someone clear things up :)
I love starting topics that get lots of replies and many different opinions :D
I love starting topics that get lots of replies and many different opinions :D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
He is the only one that has a chance to beat McCain. Hillary will get beat in the general election. Obama can win the general election.
[/QUOTE]
Democrats are outvoting Republicans nearly 2-1 in the primaries this year. Obama's supporters within the party tended to skew young, and I don't see them jumping to vote McCain if Obama is not the nominee.
In addition, McCain is irritating the evangelicals within the Republican Parry (James Dobson came out today and said he wouldn't vote for him at all and wouldn't vote in the election as a result).
Taking into consideration the high Democratic turnout, plus the conservative anger at McCain, do not count Clinton out as "unelectable."
And, no, yesterday I did not vote for her either.
He is the only one that has a chance to beat McCain. Hillary will get beat in the general election. Obama can win the general election.
[/QUOTE]
Democrats are outvoting Republicans nearly 2-1 in the primaries this year. Obama's supporters within the party tended to skew young, and I don't see them jumping to vote McCain if Obama is not the nominee.
In addition, McCain is irritating the evangelicals within the Republican Parry (James Dobson came out today and said he wouldn't vote for him at all and wouldn't vote in the election as a result).
Taking into consideration the high Democratic turnout, plus the conservative anger at McCain, do not count Clinton out as "unelectable."
And, no, yesterday I did not vote for her either.
Game, set and match? Pfft...you wish it was that easy. The only reason it took me so long to respond is that we got one foot of snow dumped on us today and I had to get home from campus and I do have a paper I have to write by Friday. I'm on a break from that, and will prove that it is not a "Game, Set and Match" situation. I'll take your points apart one by one, so that you get it:
1) the President on the US is a figurehead
Oh really? I wasn't aware that was the case. He only has the power to launch the military (granted for a short time before he must get authorization from Congress, but for 30 days he can have complete control, and a hell of a lot of damage can be done in 30 days); he also has to prepare and submit budget reports for the federal government (Congress has to approve it, but it cannot initiate the process...only the executive can do that). I would like to see the government try to run without a budget. The President is also the only person who can enter into treaties with other countries; again Congress must approve it, but if Congress approves it and the President doesn't sign it, same affect; the treaty is not entered into. He is not bound to the will of Congress if they want him to sign it and he doesn't want to; they can't force him. The Queen of England is a figurehead....the President of the US is far from it; as if you needed another example, look how much damage Bush has done in 8 years. If the President was merely a figurehead, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Power is diluted throughout the system, you are right about that...but it's supposed to be that way. Ever heard of "Checks and Balances of a Democratic System?" I would hope so, seeing as your profile says you are from the US; if you are you are truly showing your ignorance right now.
2) Obama will put on the best face for this country for the next 8 years
This is merely a statement of opinion; no more valid than a statement of opinion from me or Barb or Microwave or anyone else on this forum. Therefore this statement is totally invalid for any form of logical argument (which is what I was asking you for). It's also presumptuous....you assume he will not only be elected, but that he will be re-elected for a second term when that is over. Do you know what happens when you assume?
3) He is not a Clinton. He is not a Bush.
I'm taking these two together because it is more of the same as above. First off, these are two of the most DUH statements I've ever seen in my life. Of course he is not Clinton or Bush. He's also not Guiliani or McCain or Freddie Mercury. He is Burak Obama. The point has been established, and means nothing, because who you are means nothing in the office of the Presidency. What you believe in, what you stand for, and your opinions are what matter. Moving on from such nonsense....
4) He is the only one that has a chance to beat McCain. Hillary will get beat in the general election. Obama can win the general election.
You know this? For certain? It seems to me a claim like this completely goes against any kind of logical sense, since you can't make this claim until after the election has actually happened, and it also has to play out exactly like you said it would. So if you want to continue to claim this, you had better be able to produce the time machine you used to jump into the future and see the election going exactly this direction (and I wish you would so we could skip the whole having an election thing...saves money, time and aggravation). Oh wait...you can't. OK then, this point is also invalid.
5) He is the only candidate who has the ability to bring people of both sides together, versus driving them apart.
Oh really? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but his running against Hilary seems to be doing a pretty damn good job of splitting up the Democratic party. If he was such a "uniter" than division wouldn't be occurring....the party would
1) the President on the US is a figurehead
Oh really? I wasn't aware that was the case. He only has the power to launch the military (granted for a short time before he must get authorization from Congress, but for 30 days he can have complete control, and a hell of a lot of damage can be done in 30 days); he also has to prepare and submit budget reports for the federal government (Congress has to approve it, but it cannot initiate the process...only the executive can do that). I would like to see the government try to run without a budget. The President is also the only person who can enter into treaties with other countries; again Congress must approve it, but if Congress approves it and the President doesn't sign it, same affect; the treaty is not entered into. He is not bound to the will of Congress if they want him to sign it and he doesn't want to; they can't force him. The Queen of England is a figurehead....the President of the US is far from it; as if you needed another example, look how much damage Bush has done in 8 years. If the President was merely a figurehead, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Power is diluted throughout the system, you are right about that...but it's supposed to be that way. Ever heard of "Checks and Balances of a Democratic System?" I would hope so, seeing as your profile says you are from the US; if you are you are truly showing your ignorance right now.
2) Obama will put on the best face for this country for the next 8 years
This is merely a statement of opinion; no more valid than a statement of opinion from me or Barb or Microwave or anyone else on this forum. Therefore this statement is totally invalid for any form of logical argument (which is what I was asking you for). It's also presumptuous....you assume he will not only be elected, but that he will be re-elected for a second term when that is over. Do you know what happens when you assume?
3) He is not a Clinton. He is not a Bush.
I'm taking these two together because it is more of the same as above. First off, these are two of the most DUH statements I've ever seen in my life. Of course he is not Clinton or Bush. He's also not Guiliani or McCain or Freddie Mercury. He is Burak Obama. The point has been established, and means nothing, because who you are means nothing in the office of the Presidency. What you believe in, what you stand for, and your opinions are what matter. Moving on from such nonsense....
4) He is the only one that has a chance to beat McCain. Hillary will get beat in the general election. Obama can win the general election.
You know this? For certain? It seems to me a claim like this completely goes against any kind of logical sense, since you can't make this claim until after the election has actually happened, and it also has to play out exactly like you said it would. So if you want to continue to claim this, you had better be able to produce the time machine you used to jump into the future and see the election going exactly this direction (and I wish you would so we could skip the whole having an election thing...saves money, time and aggravation). Oh wait...you can't. OK then, this point is also invalid.
5) He is the only candidate who has the ability to bring people of both sides together, versus driving them apart.
Oh really? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but his running against Hilary seems to be doing a pretty damn good job of splitting up the Democratic party. If he was such a "uniter" than division wouldn't be occurring....the party would
6) America needs Obama. That's it. Quite simple, really.
So now you claim to KNOW what America needs? If that is the case PLEASE run for President right now, because if you KNOW what America needs, then you could give us exactly what we need as Americans and we can all live in a land of milk and honey again.
More of the same...this is an OPINION statement. Your opinion is not valid in any kind of logical debate unless it is backed up with facts, and NOTHING you have presented this far has come anywhere close to having a fact in it. Until and unless you can back up all of your wonderful opinions with facts, nothing you say is any more valid than anything anyone else says. Including sheep who merely follow what someone else says and then scream it at people as if it's fact.
Until you have something more intelligent to contribute, I believe the game, set and match belong to me.
So now you claim to KNOW what America needs? If that is the case PLEASE run for President right now, because if you KNOW what America needs, then you could give us exactly what we need as Americans and we can all live in a land of milk and honey again.
More of the same...this is an OPINION statement. Your opinion is not valid in any kind of logical debate unless it is backed up with facts, and NOTHING you have presented this far has come anywhere close to having a fact in it. Until and unless you can back up all of your wonderful opinions with facts, nothing you say is any more valid than anything anyone else says. Including sheep who merely follow what someone else says and then scream it at people as if it's fact.
Until you have something more intelligent to contribute, I believe the game, set and match belong to me.
America needs more education and less idiots.
Isn't it strange how "the economy" is on everyone's top ten issues list, when only one in ten people likely knows what the Federal Reserve is? Isn't it also strange that, despite the importance of the economy, most politicians refuse to elaborate beyond a first-grader's understanding of it (i.e. nothing)?
1) Economics is not intuitive. If anything, it can be one of the least intuitive - no, counterintuitive - fields to ever exist.
2) The general population will never understand economics broadly enough to make an informed decision on the matter. Instead, they will rely on their intuition.
What is the solution to this epidemic? Until it's solved, it doesn't matter who's the best choice for America - no one will pick him.
Isn't it strange how "the economy" is on everyone's top ten issues list, when only one in ten people likely knows what the Federal Reserve is? Isn't it also strange that, despite the importance of the economy, most politicians refuse to elaborate beyond a first-grader's understanding of it (i.e. nothing)?
1) Economics is not intuitive. If anything, it can be one of the least intuitive - no, counterintuitive - fields to ever exist.
2) The general population will never understand economics broadly enough to make an informed decision on the matter. Instead, they will rely on their intuition.
What is the solution to this epidemic? Until it's solved, it doesn't matter who's the best choice for America - no one will pick him.
I think you are right pointing out the importance of the economy. I would not pretend to understand the global economy and I have serious doubts that a national government has really that much influence as they used to have.
I saw numbers about trillions of dollars worth being traded at the stock markets - three times as much as the combined global GNPs of all economies - this is such a huge bubble of unreal speculation that it's really asked too much from an average voter to have an educated opinion about the economy. Just two weeks ago we had a landslide loss at the European stock markets for no particular reason - billions of dollars were lost within 5 hours just because there was a snowball effect of panic sales generated by automatic computer sales. You lose your job because someone in Asia programmed their coputer to sell away shares at a certain price drop - who is supposed to stop this madness?
I saw numbers about trillions of dollars worth being traded at the stock markets - three times as much as the combined global GNPs of all economies - this is such a huge bubble of unreal speculation that it's really asked too much from an average voter to have an educated opinion about the economy. Just two weeks ago we had a landslide loss at the European stock markets for no particular reason - billions of dollars were lost within 5 hours just because there was a snowball effect of panic sales generated by automatic computer sales. You lose your job because someone in Asia programmed their coputer to sell away shares at a certain price drop - who is supposed to stop this madness?
Well, the economy certainly is an issue whether people understand it or not. For me, there are other issues just as important, if not moreso.
Our border security - against terrorists as well as yet more illegal aliens
Our infrastructure
Repairing our image around the world
Less righteous judges on the supreme court bench
Protection of a woman's right to choose
Stopping the war in Iraq in a responsible way that doesn't leave the average Iraqi despising the US.
A balance of "Made in" products, like made in France, made in Canada, Made in the USA... and tons less Made in China.
Of course, bringing down health care costs is an issue, too, as is limiting our dependence on foreign oil, addressing the effects of carbon emissions and overbuilding of wetlands, bluebelts and other drainage areas.
There isn't one candidate who can fulfill all the needs America has, especially when you consider the damage this pathetic and arrogant administration has caused here and around the world. But there is one candidate I feel will address most of the issues that matter to me. So I voted for her.
;-)
Our border security - against terrorists as well as yet more illegal aliens
Our infrastructure
Repairing our image around the world
Less righteous judges on the supreme court bench
Protection of a woman's right to choose
Stopping the war in Iraq in a responsible way that doesn't leave the average Iraqi despising the US.
A balance of "Made in" products, like made in France, made in Canada, Made in the USA... and tons less Made in China.
Of course, bringing down health care costs is an issue, too, as is limiting our dependence on foreign oil, addressing the effects of carbon emissions and overbuilding of wetlands, bluebelts and other drainage areas.
There isn't one candidate who can fulfill all the needs America has, especially when you consider the damage this pathetic and arrogant administration has caused here and around the world. But there is one candidate I feel will address most of the issues that matter to me. So I voted for her.
;-)
Double post. Sorry.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The winner-takes-it-all rule (majority vote) means that all votes in a state go to the EC members representing the candidate with the majority vote in that state while the votes for the other candidate not not count at all.[/QUOTE]
Electoral college...BOOOO!!! Being in SC, my vote doesn't count, if I don't vote Republican. :-(
I didn't vote in the primary either, btw.
I have a bad feeling that it doesn't matter who gets the Dem. nomination. I don't think America has the balls to elect a woman or a black man as President. Hopefully, I'm wrong, though.
Electoral college...BOOOO!!! Being in SC, my vote doesn't count, if I don't vote Republican. :-(
I didn't vote in the primary either, btw.
I have a bad feeling that it doesn't matter who gets the Dem. nomination. I don't think America has the balls to elect a woman or a black man as President. Hopefully, I'm wrong, though.
Where's Thomas Quinn when you need him??
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The winner-takes-it-all rule (majority vote) means that all votes in a state go to the EC members representing the candidate with the majority vote in that state while the votes for the other candidate not not count at all.[/QUOTE]
Electoral college...BOOOO!!! Being in SC, my vote doesn't count, if I don't vote Republican. :-(
I didn't vote in the primary either, btw.
I have a bad feeling that it doesn't matter who gets the Dem. nomination. I don't think America has the balls to elect a woman or a black man as President. Hopefully, I'm wrong, though.[/QUOTE]
I second that.
GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!
Electoral college...BOOOO!!! Being in SC, my vote doesn't count, if I don't vote Republican. :-(
I didn't vote in the primary either, btw.
I have a bad feeling that it doesn't matter who gets the Dem. nomination. I don't think America has the balls to elect a woman or a black man as President. Hopefully, I'm wrong, though.[/QUOTE]
I second that.
GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!