Decision 2004

[srv1]

Originally posted by MidNiteBlu 5.0
alot of people in the US still arent politcally informed mostly due to ignorance...

I couldn't agree with you more......

James

p.s. You forgot brainwashed

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by bigwhitecobra :

Nevermind.

That's better.

By the way, jackass', not only did I serve four years in the Marine Corps, I am very seriously concidering going to Iraq to help rebuild, and support our boys over there anyway I can. Say what ever you want about be, but don't question my patriotism. If there was a way I could trade my life for ANY and ALL the people that died on September 11, 2001 I would without thinking twice. Given the chance I would give up my life for any and all Americans that have had their lives cut short in war, combat or what have you.

I thank you for your service to our nation and I commend your possible journey to Iraq to help those people. I have an acquaintance who is doing just that right now and he reports that it's dangerous at times but the work is rewarding. He's part of a team of specialists working to rebuild the Iraqi prison system into an humane and secure place instead of the filthy torture-chamber it was under Saddam Hussein and his party of thugs.

Let's be clear: I never 'questioned your patriotism' and for you to interpret my comments as doing so is your error, not mine. I questioned your judgement and ridiculed your 'plan' for not voting as a protest - or whatever it was supposed to do. It was simply an inane idea - and I said so. As we've never met, and never will, I cannot 'know' anything about you except for the comments you choose to post here. When they are foolish, saying so is not a slur on your patriotism, your compassion or even your manhood.

Of course these are just words to you. They don't mean anything.

In fact, words mean very much to me and I trust that my post's show this. I would suggest to you that name-calling and bravado are a poor substitute for cogent arguments and have a tendency to denigrate your credibility.

Whatever.

Indeed.

[Mach 1]

I dont really buy into this EC vote. Popular vote should win. Why do "states" have to go one way or another? Dont tell me everybody in CA is a democrat and in NY. Large cities have both republicans and democrats, as does anywhere you go. And since the most populace states have more EC votes anyway, just let the voters decide.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Mach 1 :

I dont really buy into this EC vote. Popular vote should win. Why do "states" have to go one way or another? Dont tell me everybody in CA is a democrat and in NY. Large cities have both republicans and democrats, as does anywhere you go. And since the most populace states have more EC votes anyway, just let the voters decide.

Then, any candidate who wins a majority of the votes in the states with big populations, such as California, New York, Illinois or Texas will always win any national election, even if he (or she) wins 30 or more smaller state's votes. This would make the votes of the people living in smaller states pointless.

The top 10 states in population (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey and Georgia have over 151 million residents. Let's say that half are eligible to vote. that's 75 million potential voters in 10 states. The other 41 states have a total of under 70 million residents. That's less than half of the top ten population states. Let's say, again, that 50% of the residents of the 'bottom' 41 states, population-wise, are eligible to vote. That's 35 million potential votes. Even if every single one of those voters voted for a certain candidate and even if only half of the residents of the top 10 population states voted for a different candidate, the candidate who got only 50% of the votes in the top 10 states would win the election, even though - hypothetically - every single eligible voter in the 'bottom 41' states voted for the other candidate.

That could easily happen as both N.Y. and California, with a combined population of almost 60 million people are heavily Democratic in their voting patterns and history. The unfairness of giving the voters of a handful of highly-populated states the absolute power to elect a president over the wishes of the other states residents is as unfair as it is intolerable. That's why we have the Electoral College. It isn't perfect, granted, but it does help make the playing field more equal and takes the power to elect from a handful of states, which would be patently undemocratic, in my view.

Colorado is now about to vote on a law - effective immediately - that will allow the state to aportion their electoral votes based on the popular vote. So, hypothetically, if 30% of the Colorado votes go to a Republican, he gets 3 of the states 9 electoral votes and the Democrat gets the other 6. It has yet to be passed but it would screw up the Electoral College a bit, even with only 9 votes (Californai has 55, N.Y.: 31). We'll see.

[Mach 1]

Sounds to me like Colorado is on the right track. Might be a good compromise between popular vote and EC vote.

I dont look at as "states" deciding the winner, but "people". If CA and NY have so many more peple, than the canfdidates should focus thier campaigning in those states.

If most people are democratic in those states, then most people overall are democratic, and choose to vote that way, so how would that not be fair?

I can see your point to an extent, but cant seem to comprehend why it would be unfair to the smaller states? Its the peoples choice, not the states choice.

Since the big states have the most EC votes, it still would seem like a "compromise" anyway. If all the smaller states went republican, wouldnt the lessser amount of EC votes from those states amount to them losing anyway? I guess it just tries to balance out the system the best way possible.

Maybe Im not seeing where a person lives influencing their voting choice and I should, maybe the states local politics influence voters party choice more than I perceive, therefore maiking the EC system seem more sensible.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Mach 1 :

Sounds to me like Colorado is on the right track. Might be a good compromise between popular vote and EC vote.

Well, it has to pass, first, and even if it does it will be challenged in court. This plan to apportion the EC votes according to the percentage of the popular vote would only be fair if every state did the same. That may be a long time coming.

I dont look at as "states" deciding the winner, but "people". If CA and NY have so many more peple, than the canfdidates should focus thier campaigning in those states.

I wasn't talking about geography but about the citizens of the respective states. 'States' are people. I assumed I had made that clear.

If most people are democratic in those states, then most people overall are democratic, and choose to vote that way, so how would that not be fair?

If most people in New York and California vote Democrat (which they do) then the Democrat candidate automatically receives the total Electoral College vote for those states. That is fair.

I can see your point to an extent, but cant seem to comprehend why it would be unfair to the smaller states? Its the peoples choice, not the states choice.

Again: 'states' consist of people. The unfairness comes in when a minority of people in a huge-population can elect a candidate for national office that a vast majority of voters in many other ststes may not want. If we elected candidates for president on a pure popular vote, all any presidential candidate would have to do is campaign relentlessly in New York and Califorinia and spend all of his campaign money on ads and events there to win. He could easily ignore every other state in the union in his campaign - and he could be elected by doing that. In that scenario, two big states would control who was elected president every time. 49 state's voters would be effectively disenfranchised - and it would be legal.

As I hope is now evident to you: the Electoral College was put in place 200 years ago to ensure that the voters of all the states, both large and small, had a voice in the election, not just those in two or three or four big states. The EC results generally reflect the popular vote, anyway, so little harm is done and this way, a handful of big-population states don't decide every single presidential election. The voters (citizens) of the other 41 states would never stand for that kind of situation, anyway.

Since the big states have the most EC votes, it still would seem like a "compromise" anyway. If all the smaller states went republican, wouldnt the lessser amount of EC votes from those states amount to them losing anyway? I guess it just tries to balance out the system the best way possible.

Assuming (hypothetically) that the top ten states all voted Democrat; if the other 41 states voted Republican, they could sway the election but it becomes much harder and usually doesn't happen that way. Excepting in so-called 'landslide' elections (such as Ronald Reagan in 1984 who won 50 out of 51 states) Most presidential candidates win by having a few big-population states, lots of medium-sized-population states and many small-population states voting for them. Few win by having nothing but small and medium-sized states in their 'win' column. The Electoral College does help balance things out and make the election more represenative of the nation's voters, as a whole.

Maybe Im not seeing where a person lives influencing their voting choice and I should, maybe the states local politics influence voters party choice more than I perceive, therefore maiking the EC system seem more sensible.

That's true. Some states always vote (in the majority) for one party in every election, making them predictable - and also avoided by a candidate of the opposing party who simply writes those states off as a dead loss. That's why you have 'Red' states (Republican) and 'Blue' states (Democrat) on the election map as well as 'battleground' states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, for instance) which, historically, can go either way (Democrat or Republican) and have enough electoral votes to change the outcome of the election.

The Electoral College has been around for 200 years and has worked pretty well to ensure a fair represenation of the voters in all states. Every national election, people complain about the EC - yet it survives because no one has come up with anything better or, more importantly: fairer. With the new Colorado 'Apportionate EC' plan, the venerable Electoral College syystem just may be on the verge of changing - but I wouldn't hold my breath. American institutions that have stood the test of time will always be difficult to change and I think the EC is going to be one of them. We'll see.

[Mach 1]

It all seems to make more sense now. Thanks.

[djbobbyzee]

Wow... now after reading all those posts, I'm finally exhausted and ready for bed.
Just wanted to shoot a little note to some folks who left an impression:

Bigwhitecobra: Thank you for your service to our country and your dedication. I was personally effected by the Sept 11th attacks, and will be forever greatful to those who serve and have served.

Mr. 5 O: Reading your posts, I feel like I've revisited my "Politics in Modern Society" class while still working on my Master's degree. You have a wealth of information in that head... it's well spent on your readers.

BMX: My friend, I'll cast my vote for Mr. Bush on your behalf... You've got a minimalist grasp on EC vs. Popular Vote standards. Don't let it stop there... there's a wealth of knowledge waiting for you before you begin casting votes.

CupCake: Your outlook on our country is refreshing and encouraging. I enjoy reading your post... I'm sure once you've acquired your right to vote, you'll be one of our most outspoken and informed citizens. If you're ever in my neck of the NC woods say hi. (wilmington, nc)

To conclude...
I saw a bit of funny graffiti in a Rt. 95 bathroom:

"VOTE KERRY / OSAMA 2004!!!"

Good day to you all.

[USMC302]

Who should we elect? Bush or Kerry?

Back to the original question.........My vote is for none other than the Honorable Mr. Bush.

[Mach 1]

Kerry!

I think he did a better job in the debate. Theres somethign about Bush that bothers me, he seems too cocky right now, and seemed to struggle in the debate by repeating the same thing over and over.

[MidNiteBlu 5.0]

also some of you need to consider that we DONT live in a direct democracy.

[rbohm]

Originally posted by Mach 1
Kerry!

I think he did a better job in the debate. Theres somethign about Bush that bothers me, he seems too cocky right now, and seemed to struggle in the debate by repeating the same thing over and over.

dont forget that kerry has honed his debating skills for 20+ years in the senate, bush has been in politics for only 10 years(since he ran for governor of texas). also dont forget that kerry doesnt always mean what he says. bush at least sticks to doing what he says he is going to do. remember that kerry was for the war, then against the war, then for it, but we should have gone to the UN, then against it again, then saying we cant win this war, then saying he has a plan to win the war, with the help of.............france, and germany and russia, and china. in otherwords he is going to try and enlist the aid of everyone who authorized the use of force against saddam, but then refused to get with the program and send troops to help the current US led coalition of 30 countries. the french government has even said that they wont fight in iraq regardless of the circumstances. bush wants a strong US, kerry wants a strong UN. would you rather have france protect US interests? i hope not. i surely dont. i want a strong US military to protect this country. i dont want us to end up like somalia, and a large number of other countries that depend on the UN to take care of them when things go wrong. kerry is wrong for the presidency, as are most of todays democrats(i dont want to see hillary, daschle, gephardt, gore, kennedy, edwards, or dean anywhere near the white house. i could support leiberman for president assuming the republicans cant find anyone who is better suited for the office).

[Mach 1]

Im not going to hold changing his mind against kerry. These arent easy decisons and can cause some mind changing to go on.

Strong UN works for me, less dead American GI's. To compare us to being like Somalia is just ridiculous.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Mach 1

Im not going to hold changing his mind against kerry. These arent easy decisons and can cause some mind changing to go on.

They're going to be a lot harder when you're the President of the United States, the job Kerry is asking for. As I see it, John Kerry as president would be Jimmy Carter Lite. God forbid. Please.

Senator Kerry made many strong public statements before the actual invasion of Iraq; that Saddam had to be disarmed, was 'dangerous', etc. Then, when he saw Howard Dean pulling away from him in the Democrat primaries on the tide of the huge Democrat anti-war vote, John Forbes Kerry suddenly changed his mind and voted against the now-famous 87 billion dollar funding bill for the Iraq war. In the Democrat primaries, the re-invented Senator Kerry became 'Mr. Anti-War', not on principle but for political expediency. Another example of the kind of rank political opportunism that has marked his entire public career, beginning back in '71 when he called U.S. soldiers 'murderers', 'torturers', 'rapists' and worse as he vilified the war in Viet nam and then declared that: "we wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service". This is the same John Kerry who now, when running for president 33 years later,, tries to make the Viet Nam war that he wished could be wiped from his memory, a field of glory and the best four months of his very comfortable and unremarkable life. "Reporting for duty", indeed.

The man is a phony. A political opportunist who tries to be both for and against the war in Iraq. Claiming that he'll somehow persuade nations that have no interest in sending their limited military forces to Iraq to fight in a war that he never stops calling 'wrong' and a 'Great Diversion'. The entire premise of his campaign, that the war in Iraq is a 'colossal mistake' (that he voted for) and that he'll somehow fight it 'better' and 'smarter' than President Bush is nonsense. Mysterious 'plans' for Iraq that he never quite gets around to delineating are simply smokescreens for having no plan at all but a lot of empty promises. Using the U.N. is simply a joke.

Strong UN works for me, less dead American GI's. To compare us to being like Somalia is just ridiculous.

-

Really?

Did you know that China, Cuba and the Sudan are all members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? They are. Check it out. That's how ridiculous that once-august body has become. Dictatorships that routinely imprison and murder dissidents and political opponents of the ruling regime now pass judgements on other nation's human rights records. How absurd. That's the United Nations Kerry wants to 'engage' in Iraq. Right.

The U.N. issued 17 oh-so useful U.N. Security Council Resolutions against Saddam Hussein over a dozen years. The net effect? Z-e-r-o. The U.N. is a disparate collection of non-democratic, often dictatorial countries and many corrupt officials, some making big money off of the now-defunct and totally corrupted Iraq 'Oil-For-Food' program, who have no intention whatsoever of doing anything against the spread of terrorism, much less help the United States in Iraq.

The U.N. had it's chance, back in the autumn of 2002. President Bush gave them the opportunity to step up and show that the organization could - and would - stand against terrorism. The U.N. members collectively decided otherwise and the rest, as they say, is history. So be it, but to now hear a John Kerry make straight-faced claims about 're-joining the community of nations' and using the U.N. to take over the mechanics of the war in Iraq is simply unbelievable and ridiculous. That will never happen. To assume that it will is foolish and naive, in my view.

Kerry is simply a liberal politician that, by his own Senate record, has consistantly voted against military spending and has shown a real adversion to the use of American military force anywhere in the world under any circumstances. He is the worst possible kind of politician for these dangerous times. A man who thinks having a 'summit meeting' or another peace conference will have some effect on borderless and fanatic terrorists that will eagerly kill as many Americans as possible, without a moments hesitation, even if it costs them their own lives, as so shockingly occured on 9/11/01 when we lost almost 3,000 people to a coordinated terrorist attack.

I have not forgotten that day and I assume that President Bush has not, either. He has put America on the offense and we are now fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines and elsewhere - and we are winning that fight. It is a fight that must be won but we won't win it by 'talking' to fanatic Islamofascists that believe they can destroy western civilization and replace it with a Islamic terror-state like Iran if they kill enough innocents and we ever become foolish to believe that the useless United Nations and some ephemeral 'make-love-not-war' coalition of sweet-talkers will somehow persude dedicated, fanaticial killers from doing exactly what they say they will do: vanquish us and subjugate us to their 'will of Allah'. No thanks, Senator. In my opinion, John Kerry is the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong place.

Senator John F. Kerry is a poor choice for a presidential candidate in 2004 and his selection by the Democrats simply demonstrate how out-of-touch that party's leadership really is. He may look good behind a podium but that isn't leading, it's posing. Kerry poses well. Bush leads far better.

I vote for Bush.

[rbohm]

AMEN Mr 5.0. in fact kerry has quoted both carter AND clinton in his campaign. during the 1976 presidential campaign cater said "i want to return honesty, dignity and prestige to the white house"(or something to that effect) and look what happened then. in 1992 clinton said he wanted to give the middle class a tax cut, and raise taxes on the rich. after he was elected(actually bush sr fired) he not only raised taxes on the rich, but the middle class as well. now kerry has said the same things the carter and clinton have said. kerry wants to return honesty and integrity to the white house, AND give the middle class a tax cut, while raising taxes on the rich. i guess that means we will have another huge tax increase, and another embassy taken over by islamic fundamentalists, all the while we will try negotiating for their release, only to have several of our special forces teams killed and dishonored on the battlefield in a dubious, but failed, attempt to forcebly get our hostages back. and that will only further empower the fundamentalist terrorists. no kerry is wrong for this country. if he wants the presidency soo bad let him run for president of france. that is where he is suited to be, unless france wants to keep their tough leader president chirac

[CupCake]

Thanks for taking the time to read my posts. You can be sure that when I am able to vote I will be the first one in line. I will vote for the things that are right and not popular, I will vote for a president that has values and morals and it is not afraid of sharing his believes. Until then I will keep posting my opinion, maybe one day it will have effect on somebody that might be confused and doesn't know how lucky he is for being here and having a goverment that they can trust. So this year somebody, please think of me when they are getting ready to vote and vote for Bush from me.

[xxxBlakexxx]

Wednessday morning my wife and I will have an opportunity to meet Pres. Bush. We received our first phone call from the White house on Thursday last week. This morning, the official arrangements were made.

We will be meeting "W" at Air Force One and get his picture taken with him at the base of the plane right on top of the seal of the President. Time permitting, we will be invited to ride with him in his limo.

Why the visit? My wife and I do quite a bit of volunteer work with kids with cancer and even started our own organization four years ago called Home of Their Own (or HoTO). HoTO provides isolation housing for kids who are undergoing bone marrow transplants. President Bush has made a big effort to acknowledge volunteer organizations since 911 and fealt that we deserved some attention.

Should be a real exciting day and will be great attention for our cause.

[rbohm]

cool. i hope the visit goes well for you.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by xxxBlakexxx :

Wednessday morning my wife and I will have an opportunity to meet Pres. Bush. We received our first phone call from the White house on Thursday last week. This morning, the official arrangements were made.

We will be meeting "W" at Air Force One and get his picture taken with him at the base of the plane right on top of the seal of the President. Time permitting, we will be invited to ride with him in his limo.

Why the visit? My wife and I do quite a bit of volunteer work with kids with cancer and even started our own organization four years ago called Home of Their Own (or HoTO). HoTO provides isolation housing for kids who are undergoing bone marrow transplants. President Bush has made a big effort to acknowledge volunteer organizations since 911 and fealt that we deserved some attention.

Should be a real exciting day and will be great attention for our cause.

Congratulations on your fine work with the children suffering from cancer. A very worthy charity and the attention from President Bush certainly will help spread the word.

The visit with the president should be an exciting time and I not only hope it goes well but that you post again, afterwards, and give us the details and any photos you might wish to share.

Good luck!

[mustardjohn]

WOW!

Great work, glad for your recognition!


My sister-in-law used to help with these kinds of things for Nancy Reagan. They do sort through a lot of possible people to recognize the the best. Congrats again.