Topic: OT- Tuesday Nov 2 U.S.A. (Read 9573 times)

GHammer · « **on:** November 01, 2004, 10:10:02 pm »

Remember, vote early, vote often!
No matter who you vote for, make the effort to get to the polls.

I have a feeling that my write-in candidate, Stalin, is not going to win. But I know my vote for local races like dogcatcher are valuable. So are yours.

breadfan · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2004, 01:57:24 am »

final election outlook...

almost certain electoral votes (unless hawaii switches):

Bush: 227
Kerry: 207
(270 necessary to win... 269 causes a tie in which Bush wins because the House will then vote him in)

Realclearpolitics averages (compilation of current polls and widely regarded as the most accurate in 2000)
• Florida: Bush + 1.0
• Ohio: Bush + 2.1
• Pennsylvania: Kerry +0.9
• Wisconsin: Bush + 0.9
• Iowa: Bush + 0.3
• Minnesota: Kerry +3.2
• Michigan: Kerry +3.5
• New Mexico: Bush + 1.4
• Nevada: Bush + 6.3
• New Hampshire: Kerry +1.2

All Bush needs is Florida and Ohio and he wins... if he loses Ohio then he needs Wisconsin and Iowa and New Mexico.

If Bush loses both Florida and Ohio, the election is probably over... if Kerry loses Pennsylvania the election is probably over.

Final tally
Bush: 296
Kerry: 242

JimH · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2004, 09:22:10 am »

www.electoral-vote.com has a different outcome.

GHammer · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2004, 10:47:50 am »

I think that is why we vote instead of taking a poll.
I remember that the Carter/Reagan election was going to be close.

Well, closer than Mondale/Reagan anyway...

lee269 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2004, 12:35:39 pm »

Im not an American, so Im not voting, but I believe in exercising your democratic rights when you have the opportunity.

Mostly this time Im hoping for a clear result without any of the undignified messing about of last time.

And what I really wanted to say was that I have enjoyed reading the various polls and posts here on Interact over the last few months. So thanks to all for shedding some light on the debates with real opinions from 'Joe Public', and to Jim for tolerating/encouraging it.

You know, I think Ill miss it - but if the recent newspaper rumours are true we'll have a UK election to discuss in February 2005. Thanks again.

Sam · « **Reply #5 on:** November 02, 2004, 01:34:53 pm »

I think the actual poll results are more like:
14% Bush
14% Kerry
2% Undecided
70% Refuse to answer survey

IlPadrino · « **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2004, 01:54:18 pm »

Quote from: JimH on November 02, 2004, 09:22:10 am

www.electoral-vote.com has a different outcome.

Not really... it shows the same thing breadfan said: if Bush wins FL (weak Kerry) and OH (barely Bush) and the rest remains, he wins. And let's not forget that the "Votemaster" of electoral-vote.com is Democratic.

JimH · « **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2004, 02:24:26 pm »

Quote from: IlPadrino on November 02, 2004, 01:54:18 pm

Quote from: JimH on November 02, 2004, 09:22:10 am
www.electoral-vote.com has a different outcome.

Not really... it shows the same thing breadfan said:

The page changed after I posted this morning. The original talley was about 290 Kerry to 240 something Bush.

Quote

let's not forget that the "Votemaster" of electoral-vote.com is Democratic.

True. But he's using the most recent poll available in each case, regardless of his source.

The bottom line is that things are too close to call. It could go either way.

Simple · « **Reply #8 on:** November 02, 2004, 03:00:11 pm »

Quote from: lee269 on November 02, 2004, 12:35:39 pm

...Mostly this time Im hoping for a clear result without any of the undignified messing about of last time...

Writing from Europe I'm an outsider too. A clear result would be best for all, whoever wins the race. A few days more or less ar not worth to talk about. But just leave the judges out of this.

Remarkable is the interest for the election here in Europe. I never saw anything like this in the last 30 years. Newspapers and TV are very engaged this time.

IlPadrino · « **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2004, 03:15:27 pm »

Quote from: JimH on November 02, 2004, 02:24:26 pm

The bottom line is that things are too close to call. It could go either way.

Agreed! I just hope the election is settled in seven more hours.

KingSparta · « **Reply #10 on:** November 02, 2004, 03:53:03 pm »

Quote from: IlPadrino on November 02, 2004, 03:15:27 pm

Quote from: JimH on November 02, 2004, 02:24:26 pm
The bottom line is that things are too close to call. It could go either way.

Agreed! I just hope the election is settled in seven more hours.

It won't be, it will be about 30 days and run up to the Supreme Court a few times because people can't count or follow directions.

One of the few reasons I refuse to vote is the system sucks.

1. Why do I need to register?

Why can't I just put my Drivers license or State Id Card in the dang thing and count my vote?

Take my thumb print I don't care, I am not running from the FBI

2. Why can't I Vote from My Office at home?

in this day and age we are still making a "X" on a paper and putting it in a box in some States\Cities\Places

Show me a picture, give me the top 25 things about this person

If you listen to Shawn 3-5pm (On the AM band, Talk Radio) "Man On The Street Thursday" where they ask who is the President, Vise-President, etc... Most people in New York don't even know who is running or what they stand for.

If they have a IQ of 69 or less they are still allowed to vote, even thou the government had declared them incompetent.

Simple · « **Reply #11 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:13:41 pm »

Quote from: KingSparta on November 02, 2004, 03:53:03 pm

...One of the few reasons I refuse to vote is the system sucks.
1. Why do I need to register?...
2. Why can't I Vote from My Office at home?...

Asked myself the same questions. This is the way it works in Europe in some states for a at least 200 years (o.k., the office could be a problem). Without some electors inbetween (some call it 'Direct Democracy'). But this is an old decision and has to be respected. For now the rules are made.

And it's absolutely NO alibi to refuse your vote.

paulr · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:23:14 pm »

The whole register-to-vote thing is stupid. If you are a citizen, you should be able to vote if you can prove your identity. You should also be able to vote anywhere (any precinct at least) - something that could happen in the future with electronic voting. I think we need the feds to step in and outline requirements that every state must follow for federal elections (not state elections) - that way, if I was on vacation in Alaska, I could vote there...

Some states exclude certain citizens, like felons, from voting. That should be an easy thing to handle.

And don't even get me started on the electoral college system. =/

Sam · « **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:39:16 pm »

Quote from: paulr on November 02, 2004, 04:23:14 pm

The whole register-to-vote thing is stupid. If you are a citizen, you should be able to vote if you can prove your identity. You should also be able to vote anywhere (any precinct at least) - something that could happen in the future with electronic voting.

It's not like registration poses a major barrier to legitimate voters. If you can prove your identity and where you live, you can register.

The purpose of registration is to ensure that people don't vote in more than one precinct or state. Since we don't have a national database of vote-entitled citizens, I don't know how else we would do that.

I suppose we could stamp people's hands like they did in Afghanistan...

Simple · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:54:32 pm »

Quote from: Sam on November 02, 2004, 04:39:16 pm

...Since we don't have a national database of vote-entitled citizens, I don't know how else we would do that...

There are so many databases. Should'nt be that difficult? Works in other places.

paulr · « **Reply #15 on:** November 02, 2004, 04:54:36 pm »

Registration is a hassle, a waste of money and time, but it's not a barrier. In other words, it's stupid.

Quote

The purpose of registration is to ensure that people don't vote in more than one precinct or state.

This shouldn't be an issue in the near future. My comment about federal guidelines and the future of electronic voting would take care of the multiple-vote issue. It's something that we should be working towards.

KingSparta · « **Reply #16 on:** November 02, 2004, 05:36:12 pm »

Quote

The purpose of registration is to ensure that people don't vote in more than one precinct or state.

nice try

so lets say we used our brain for a second

we hook a voting mach to a lan, that connected to the State Lan that hooks to the white house lan

if i vote in more than one place this data would be aval at the other sites, so if you showed ID at one place (by letting the computer read my card) it would not allow for me to vote at the next location.

now we are using pen and paper in the 21st century

modelmaker · « **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2004, 01:12:52 am »

>Kingsparta and others of the same ilk, with all due respect, your opinions don't matter and don't count, but oh yeah, it's America, you're allowed to have one and voice it. Democracy is a participatory form of government. As a citizen (or so you proclaim), it is your duty to participate (vote). If you don't, you get what you deserve and you don't have a say in it. Too bad.

If you want to change the way things work, you have to get involved. You complain how awful everything is, but what have you done to change anything? Even just in your own community? Ever help out at a soup kitchen or deliver meals for seniors who can't get around? Help kids and adults learn to read? There are plenty of things a person can do in their own community. Yeah, you might have to spend a couple of hours less on your computer a week, (I guess that would be too much of a hardship). And you call yourselves Americans!

A lot of American citizens have died so you could voice your opinions and have the freedoms you have, the least the rest of us can do is take 1/2 an hour and go down to your local voter registration office and register to vote. And then exercise that right.

>The idea behind the electoral college is to equalize the playing field for all the states. If the election were decided purely by the popular vote then only the most populous states would matter in an election and the rest would be ignored, (mob rule). With the electoral college system, all states matter. A candidate has to win more than just the big states, they must also win a lot of the smaller states in order to reach that magic number of 270 points.

Sorry about the rant, but this subject really gets me going, especially today.

GHammer · « **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:02:20 am »

Quote from: KingSparta on November 02, 2004, 05:36:12 pm

now we are using pen and paper in the 21st century

Vote-O-Matic v1.0.1

Um, aren't we in a forum to discuss problems with software?
Somehow I'd rather trust my vote to pen and paper.

How would I vote, for instance? I'm in China.
How would my mother have voted? She had no driver's license.
For that matter, I have been out of the country so long that my license has expired long ago.

Go register, I did it by mail from here. I'd think it isn't that huge a deal if you are in the US.

Sam · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:15:34 am »

Quote from: paulr on November 02, 2004, 04:54:36 pm

Registration is a hassle, a waste of money and time, but it's not a barrier. In other words, it's stupid.

Quote
The purpose of registration is to ensure that people don't vote in more than one precinct or state.

This shouldn't be an issue in the near future. My comment about federal guidelines and the future of electronic voting would take care of the multiple-vote issue. It's something that we should be working towards.

Okay, so in your future world, registration would be stupid.
What's the alternative in this world? What's the smart way of handling voter administration in our current non-networked voting system?

hit_ny · « **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2004, 05:05:08 am »

Its beginning to look like Bush has won.

What's interesting to see is that Bush won the popular vote !!

Too bad for the Europeans, i guess they will have to adjust to working with him for another 4 years.

TimB · « **Reply #21 on:** November 03, 2004, 05:28:34 am »

Quote from: KingSparta on November 02, 2004, 05:36:12 pm

Quote
The purpose of registration is to ensure that people don't vote in more than one precinct or state.

nice try

so lets say we used our brain for a second

we hook a voting mach to a lan, that connected to the State Lan that hooks to the white house lan

if i vote in more than one place this data would be aval at the other sites, so if you showed ID at one place (by letting the computer read my card) it would not allow for me to vote at the next location.

now we are using pen and paper in the 21st century

Agreed (except I wouldn't have the lan at the top of this run by the White House regardless of the party).

The idea of Voter Registration as some kind of obstacle (beyond pure citizenship) that you have to clear in order to vote takes us back to the centuries before the voting rights legislation of the earlyish sixties. The purpose of registration is (and should be) ONLY to make sure that people are eligible to vote and only vote in one place (and I'd bet the latter is not currently particularly effective), not to provide barriers to voting.

I'd like to see voting from home (if sufficient security technologies were in place).

-=Tim=-

Jaguu · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2004, 08:02:38 am »

Hi,

just wanted to let you know how voting works here in Switzerland:

1) The smallest federal entity here is a burough (can be a village, town or a city)
2) Every citizen has to be registered and member of a burough within 10 days after moving from one place to another. So every Swiss citizen should be registered somewhere at any time (inside the country or abroad).
3) Before an election you receive from your burough by mail your personal non transferable voting card that allows you to vote at your registered burough.
4) When you vote, your vote card is checked to see whether you are allowed to vote in that burrough.
5) Of course you can send in your vote by mail before the election day and in a few experimental places you can vote ectronically via web.

So what is registration in the US different from above procedure?

xen-uno · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2004, 09:58:25 am »

modelmaker,

A state's electoral vote number is population based. It is not immune to "mob rule" any more than the popular vote is...and big states still carry the most weight. The (relative) small number of electorates makes it more likely that collusion/graf/etc could occur. If the constituents of the electoral college waited for the results of their states' popular vote and then voted accordingly, I would say OK. They don't tho...and so it makes the popular vote meaningless. The college saved Bush's arse in the last election (Gore would have won if the pop vote meant something). So...the electoral college needs to be jettisoned (the sooner the better). There is no need for it anymore and I think it contributes to voter apathy.

10^-27

TimB · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2004, 10:21:42 am »

Quote from: xen-uno on November 03, 2004, 09:58:25 am

modelmaker,

A state's electoral vote number is population based. It is not immune to "mob rule" any more than the popular vote is...and big states still carry the most weight. The (relative) small number of electorates makes it more likely that collusion/graf/etc could occur. If the constituents of the electoral college waited for the results of their states' popular vote and then voted accordingly, I would say OK. They don't tho...and so it makes the popular vote meaningless. The college saved Bush's arse in the last election (Gore would have won if the pop vote meant something). So...the electoral college needs to be jettisoned (the sooner the better). There is no need for it anymore and I think it contributes to voter apathy.

10^-27

Yup, I live in Virginia and my vote didn't count!

-=Tim=-

KingSparta · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2004, 10:58:04 am »

Quote

I wouldn't have the lan at the top of this run by the White House regardless of the party

well not the white house but at the top where all parties are and can keep control.

GHammer · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2004, 11:30:10 am »

Huh? The Electoral Colege does in fact "wait" for the results of the popular election. You might want to read up on it. As for "We wuz robbed in 2000", get over it. And if that is your main complaint then you will like this year's result. Both popular vote by millions and Electors.

At least Kerry had the courtesy to concede instead of marshalling an army of lawyers like Gore did. Maybe that will start a new trend of being civil on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

See you in 2008 for another Bush/Clinton matchup, Jeb vs Hillary!

Sam · « **Reply #27 on:** November 03, 2004, 12:54:03 pm »

I think the best shot against Hillary is Rudy.

xen-uno · « **Reply #28 on:** November 03, 2004, 01:32:07 pm »

I stand corrected...

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/faq.html#takeall

ghammer > "As for "We wuz robbed in 2000", get over it. And if that is your main complaint then you will like this year's result. Both popular vote by millions and Electors."

Well then, I guess that makes everything OK then...right? It can't happen again and thus there's no need for change. Yeah right!

Read the 2nd paragraph in the section on link above titled "What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?". I just can't imagine why anyone would favor continuing this "archaic" and "ambiguous" system (but they do according to 1st paragraph). The Politics of Politics just suks!

10^-27

edit: ... and I have no love for either the Demo or Repub parties...just that the 2000 election reaked of corruption. Stay tuned tho...more of that to come again in the future.

Sam · « **Reply #29 on:** November 03, 2004, 05:00:32 pm »

Does anyone know when Powell and Ridge (and some others, I hope) would step down? Does that happen in January, or can that happen at any time?

JimH · « **Reply #30 on:** November 03, 2004, 05:23:38 pm »

Any cabinet officer can depart at any time, but it's customary that a few leave when the new administration begins (January).

GHammer · « **Reply #31 on:** November 03, 2004, 07:40:27 pm »

Quote from: xen-uno on November 03, 2004, 01:32:07 pm

I stand corrected...

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/faq.html#takeall

ghammer > "As for "We wuz robbed in 2000", get over it. And if that is your main complaint then you will like this year's result. Both popular vote by millions and Electors."

Well then, I guess that makes everything OK then...right? It can't happen again and thus there's no need for change. Yeah right!

Read the 2nd paragraph in the section on link above titled "What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?". I just can't imagine why anyone would favor continuing this "archaic" and "ambiguous" system (but they do according to 1st paragraph). The Politics of Politics just suks!

10^-27

edit: ... and I have no love for either the Demo or Repub parties...just that the 2000 election reaked of corruption. Stay tuned tho...more of that to come again in the future.

Yeah, I guess it does make everything alright. Except to the rabbidly partisan who only have the fantasy of "We wuz robbed" to account for why their guy lost. Can't be any other reason, couldn't be that including this election 5 of 7 have gone to the Republicans. Congress is setting of on another Republican adventure. And few would suggest that many/most of them had their elections given to them.

But I've noticed that when the Democrats lose they like to have some boogeyman to blame. Because if that is not so then they have to look at why voters do not elect them.

As for the Electoral College system, surprisingly an article that includes "archaic" and "ambiguous" isn't going to recommend it. It wasn't just put in to do one thing. It also doesn't need to be dumped so that Ca and NY can run Presidential politics.

paulr · « **Reply #32 on:** November 04, 2004, 01:41:17 am »

Quote

rabbidly partisan who only have the fantasy of "We wuz robbed" to account for why their guy lost.

I don't hear anyone complaining about the 2004 election, or any other election for that matter. There is good reason for people to be upset about the 2000 Presidential Election (whether you agree with it or not, there is some question as to the legitimacy). You are just spouting the Limbaugh Line (TM).

Quote

And few would suggest that many/most of them had their elections given to them.

You just made my point.

Quote

It also doesn't need to be dumped so that Ca and NY can run Presidential politics.

Dumping the Electoral College wouldn't have this effect. The number of electoral votes a state has is already directly proportional to its population. The problem with the electoral college is that, for example, republicans' votes in California basically don't count. Same goes for democrats' votes in Texas. Not to mention that fact that electors CAN and DO go against the popular vote in their own state.

IlPadrino · « **Reply #33 on:** November 04, 2004, 08:05:40 am »

paulr and xen-uno:

I get the impression you're overlooking the importance of two reasons for using the electoral college. First, it allows the individual states to choose their own method of casting their (winner-take-all vice proportional allocation) apportioned electoral votes. Second, and perhaps more important, it provides a certain power to the states in terms of campaigning. Let me explain with a scenario. Suppose OH was known to be a battleground state and CA was staunchly Democrat. Candidates would need to try and sway the smaller portion of voters in OH (as well as other states) to make up for the certain loss of electoral votes in CA. If the electoral college were scrapped, states like CA, NY, and FL would have much more power in terms of campaign focus.

Now, I'm not certain I agree these are good reasons for keeping with the college - but we can't discount them altogether. CA politicians complained that Bush does very little their state; PA can't say the same!

Boittom line: Some in federal government believe the States should have significant say in their governance. One way of accomplishing this is the electoral college.

Oh... and what does Limbaugh have to do with this?

KingSparta · « **Reply #34 on:** November 04, 2004, 08:43:53 am »

Quote

Does anyone know when Powell and Ridge (and some others, I hope) would step down?

Don't like Powell?

I think he will step down do to rumors, and hits

you did not see powell in the news supporting bush, at least i did not.

Ridge may due to medical reasons

I think powell should run in 2008

Sam · « **Reply #35 on:** November 04, 2004, 03:39:07 pm »

Sorry, I meant that I hope a few others would step down, including Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. Bush needs to shed some baggage from his first term to regain support and trust from the anti-Bush crowd.

I mention Powell and Ridge, because there's been talk that they would step down. Just wondering when they would.

Bush said early on that he had asked Powell and Rumsfeld not to participate in the campaign. I wondered if that was just a cover story, but just recently, Madeline Albright said that the Sec'y of State traditionally doesn't get involved in campaigning.

Fixer · « **Reply #36 on:** November 04, 2004, 05:29:07 pm »

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/01/eletoral.college.tm/

has a pretty good article on the Electoral college.

Basically is gives extra political power to smaller states over the larger states, preventing the larger states from always getting their way.

The vote count per state is one vote for each senator(2) and one for each congressman. That way even the smallest state gets 3 votes.

xen-uno · « **Reply #37 on:** November 04, 2004, 07:32:54 pm »

Irrelevant (big versus small).. The purpose of voting for president is to elect someone who will ultimately represent the people and the nation as a whole...not these regions known as states. States are not voting entities in themselves and should be treated as such. It is the people who are voicing who they want for president...and majority rules.

The following "part of the process" burns me as well: If, by chance, there is a electoral vote tie, who decides then? Well...throw out the readily available popular vote results cuz it's in the hands of the House of Representatives, who are not bound by any law I'm aware of to vote based on their home-state results.

I'm done thinking about this political garbage for it upsets the hell out of me, so I'll leave it with my final thought...God bless America but also...God dam the System!

10^-27

IlPadrino · « **Reply #38 on:** November 04, 2004, 08:26:01 pm »

Quote from: xen-uno on November 04, 2004, 07:32:54 pm

The purpose of voting for president is to elect someone who will ultimately represent the people and the nation as a whole...not these regions known as states. States are not voting entities in themselves and should be treated as such. It is the people who are voicing who they want for president...and majority rules.

OK... we shouldn't argue (I don't think you'd be convinced). Suffice it to write that your opinion of how the U.S. Government should work is not in line with what our Founding Fathers intended.

Mysticeti · « **Reply #39 on:** November 04, 2004, 09:14:16 pm »

On the other hand...

There are a few good reasons for keeping the electoral college here:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=128305&cid=10713968

There are a number of good reasons to keep the electoral college. Here are a few that come to mind. I'll leave out the ones about ensuring representation for rural states, since that one usually comes up in the discussion.

It isolates voting irregularities to a single state. This can be important. For example, if Diebold voting machines showed 3 billion people voted in Montana, it wouldn't have a drastic effect on the outcome since Montana only has 3 electoral votes.
It balances differences in voter turnout. New York is roughly twice the size of North Carolina. However, lets assume that New York gets hit by thunderstorms and has massive flooding on election day making it less convenient for people to vote. As a result, New York might have 30% voter turnout while North Carolina might have 60% voter turnout. This would mean North Carolina would have roughly the same representation as New York -- a state twice its size. The electoral college reduces the impact of weather, disasters, and even regional voter apathy on the final election results.
Not everyone that lives in a state may be eligible to vote because they may not be citizens. If a state has a large immigrant population, it is important the state's interests are represented in proportion to its size even though many of its residents may be unable to vote. The electoral college ensures this since electoral representation is determined based on raw population data from the census. A nationwide popular election would short-change states with lots of immigrants, or lots of children, or any other sizeable block of ineligible voters.
The electoral college ensures elections will always have a definite outcome. Even in 2000 when election results were unclear and court challeges delayed the outcome, the electoral college ensured we would eventually get a result that could not be legally disputed. Even if Gore had continued the court challenges and things were undecided until the day the electors cast their votes, once the electors voted, the outcome would be definite. By having the votes of a few hundred electors chosen by the states determine the final outcome, there is no room for errors in voting or tabulation. It is always clear how each of the electors vote.

hit_ny · « **Reply #40 on:** November 04, 2004, 10:32:50 pm »

I've finally understood the point of the electoral college system.

Its to give every state the power to affect who gets to be the president. Popular vote otherwise means CA & NY run presidential politics.

I cant imagine the electoral college system ever being disposed off, as the less populated states would lose influence as a result and consequently would never support changing the system. I have a feeling this played an important part in forming the union in the first place (not sure but it seems like a good reason).

Why join a union of states if you dont get to have an equal say in who gets to run the country. Better off to be an independent country isnt it !!

Yeah, it sucks when the election is close as winer take all. But this isn't the first time elections have been close. I cant see or have heard of an alternative system to electoral college. Fact that its been in place for more than 200 yrs must say something.

I would be curious to know how the system works in other countries, but im betting a similar system to give places an equal say is in effect.

rocketsauce · « **Reply #41 on:** November 05, 2004, 12:27:22 am »

Quote from: Sam on November 04, 2004, 03:39:07 pm

Bush needs to shed some baggage from his first term to regain support and trust from the anti-Bush crowd.

You're assuming, of course, that there was a point when he did have our trust and support.

Rob

TimB · « **Reply #42 on:** November 05, 2004, 06:25:51 am »

Let me start by saying I dislike the Electoral College and that there IS an alternative: Proportional Representation.

Unfortunately by more closely representing the actual will of the people it leads to many political parties and government in a form that I think the people of the USA would not be happy with.

However I DO think a third party (of any flavor) would be a good thing.

-=Tim=-

lOth · « **Reply #43 on:** November 05, 2004, 07:48:02 am »

Guys, I'm sorry for what's just happened to you. I think I'll just stay in France 4 more years...

Sam · « **Reply #44 on:** November 05, 2004, 10:35:59 am »

Quote from: rocketsauce on November 05, 2004, 12:27:22 am

Quote from: Sam on November 04, 2004, 03:39:07 pm
Bush needs to shed some baggage from his first term to regain support and trust from the anti-Bush crowd.

You're assuming, of course, that there was a point when he did have our trust and support.

Rob

I don't know about you, but most of the country was fully behind him after 9/11 and through the Afghanistan war.

KingSparta · « **Reply #45 on:** November 05, 2004, 11:13:25 am »

Are we still talking about this?

It is a done deal

rocketsauce · « **Reply #46 on:** November 06, 2004, 01:41:40 am »

Quote from: Sam on November 05, 2004, 10:35:59 am

Quote from: rocketsauce on November 05, 2004, 12:27:22 am
Quote from: Sam on November 04, 2004, 03:39:07 pm
Bush needs to shed some baggage from his first term to regain support and trust from the anti-Bush crowd.

You're assuming, of course, that there was a point when he did have our trust and support.

Rob

I don't know about you, but most of the country was fully behind him after 9/11 and through the Afghanistan war.

You didn't orignally say "most of the country". You said "the anti-bush crowd". My point was that there never was a time when we were pro-Bush.

Rob

Sam · « **Reply #47 on:** November 06, 2004, 01:43:50 pm »

Sorry Rocket. My mistake.
I didn't realize that you don't understand English.
I think the world will be better off if we just ignored each other's posts.

Omni · « **Reply #48 on:** November 06, 2004, 02:09:52 pm »

Quote from: rocketsauce on November 06, 2004, 01:41:40 am

You said "the anti-bush crowd". My point was that there never was a time when we were pro-Bush.

Maybe I'm missing something, but unfortunately and sadly, 51% of the voting public begs to differ with your assessment.

(Now excuse me while I go hide in a cave for the next four years.)

rocketsauce · « **Reply #49 on:** November 06, 2004, 04:11:47 pm »

Quote from: Sam on November 06, 2004, 01:43:50 pm

I didn't realize that you don't understand English.

Resorting to insults. Nice.

Rob

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: OT- Tuesday Nov 2 U.S.A. (Read 9573 times)

Simple

Simple

Simple

Fixer