McCain?

[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.

 

[sneakypenguin]

But I'm just a political science and American history double major... not like I know what I'm talking about.

Yay let's all show off our degrees.
Me next! I'm a Enterprise Mgmt major with a minor in logistics and a co lateral in information managment. Lol don't throw degrees around they don't mean too much let your points stand for themselves rather than trying to bolster an argument with a boast. People should see your educated with your writings rather than you having to pronounce it
Just a pet peeve of mine

 

[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?

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.

By that argument, shouldn't Palin be the one running for PRESIDENT? McCain doesn't have ANY executive experience...

 

[Limos]

Mccain himself wouldn't be a terrible president. He should have been the Republican candidate 8 years ago. But he was a "Maverik" so the Republicans didn't like him.

Nowadays I just don't want Palin anywhere near the presidency. And I don't think we can take another 4 years of Republican administration.

 

[BigKingBob]

We, the Obamalites, forecast a crushing victory, therefore we dont need to act like haters.

What happend hear is that Obama has a lead in MULTIPLE states, while mccain is high suport in some states.

The exact oposite of the bush vs algore fiasco from years ago.

But doesnt the entire outcome of the US election depend on the results from a very small number of states? (Like 5 or less)

Obama could stil easily lose this thing, I dont want him to but I can see it happening.

Your electoral college system really does suck ass

my electorate system? Im English xD

I just follow the race and like Obama, looks like he will win too. Unlike the last time i backed Al.

Ah! Apologies from a fellow englishman! I just tend to presume that everyone on the tubes is a yank.

Though our constituency system also leaves something to be desired aswell. I can see why we have it and how it makes sense, but I would prefer it if the house of lords was replaced with a second elected house that was voted in by PR.

 

[742]

mccain hate?
hes a stuck-in-his-ways old man, seems unadaptable and angry, throws being held as a POW and tortured as a qualification (perhaps for psychiatric examination or a position running veterans affairs, but not president-being tortured does not make you a good leader, trust me on this) at EVERY possible opprotunity and knows absolutely nothing about computers, likely plans to ignore education and our infastructure, both physical and computer. im going to guess he will solve any scientific problems by just throwing money at them (or ignore them). also in the third debate he called me retarded, at this point it becomes personal hate. he wants to stay at war forever, i personally dont think he understands the culture of the people were fighting, and he was cought SINGING about bombing iran. you dont fucking do that if you have the power to make it happen unless your visibly intoxicated, and even then it is not to be looked upon kindly. but thats just him, lets move on to his running mate

sara palin is closed minded. she is clearly an idiot. she is an attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator. shes a *****. shes against abortion even if "a 15 year old is raped by a family member". she incites fanaticism and KILLING the other guy, who seems like he would be a good leader in congress even if he doesnt make president, oh, and the small issue of murdering your political opponets but keeping plausible deniability, no bad guy has ever done that. ever. she had a fucking exorcism. and there is a serious danger that john mccain will die in office, and this psycho might be president. now im not proposing she should be locked up, but i think people like her cant coexist peacefully with the rest of soceity. i think they should be put someplace remote, someplace hard to get to, someplace nobody in their right mind would want to live, and its gotta have a harsh enviroment so that that they cant just walk back, far FAR away from civilization. alaska maybe?

then theres the campaign. run by the same people that did george W bush. nuff said. red lightsabres are cool and all, but i would rather not have anyone in power be pulling the jedi mind trick on me.(im not a star wars geek, the bad guys had that too right?)

the other candidate seems like someone who might actually do some good, sure hes hiding something, but his campaign isnt being run by the kind of lies, and if theres anything legitimately bad about him the republicans would have found it by now. far from perfect but more than good enough and im not holding my breath for nader 08, or even barr 08.

also, i am the fabled liberal elitist, i think the smart people should be doing thinking work and the stupid people should be breaking rocks, lifting things, being paid LOTS of money to clean out sewers, or asking me if i would like fries with my large order of fries. i also think that anyone and/or anything should be able to legally fuck anyone/anything else as long as both parties are sentient and consent to the act(s) in question. maybe getting educated. i dont think stupidity and ignorance are things that you should take pride in, i beleive they are things to be ashamed of, cured, or left alone(i will admit, i do not want to know what my grandparents look like during sex, and if you try to kill me i WILL do my absolute best to hurt you, and i dont see any pressing need to know about the technical specs of the first computer). i dont understand why that makes me a horrible evil person, there are lots of other things i would want to be hated for if you absolutely must hate me.

electoral college... why cant we count vote-by-vote? they arent peices of paper written by illiterate morons placed in a bag tied shut and to a donkey that has to be carried thousands of miles across rickety rope bridges to be counted by someone who may or may not be able to read. we use computers and shit, theyre even networked! lets use that to give everyone a vote, conservative votes dont count in california and liberal votes dont count in arkansas under the current system, that seems kinda wrong.

 

[mike1921]

Your electoral college system really does suck ass

It's actually a good thing it keeps some states from having too much say in elections. An example(of no EC system) would be Il. Chicago controls that states agenda because it is the premire population center. So the electoral college system allows lesser states and population centers a bigger say in running the country. Without the EC the northeast would have the biggest control of elections leaving the south and midwest with very little imput into elections.

Erm, surely the number of people is what should determine the election, not the states. If there really are fewer people in those states, surely its fair that they have a lesser say?

I've been saying for the longest time, there are less black people so they defiantly shouldn't have as important say (Sarcasm)

It's true. The only way for black people to have as much say as white people is to make their votes count 4 times more

See, if we had a direct, majority-of-the-voters election, then politicians would only care about issues that effect big (population) states.

No. Only if if they think they can get a vote from 90% of the people in the big population states. The big population states would be more important but they are with the EC to.

also in the third debate he called me retarded, at this point it becomes personal hate

?

 

[Doug]

Your electoral college system really does suck ass

It's actually a good thing it keeps some states from having too much say in elections. An example(of no EC system) would be Il. Chicago controls that states agenda because it is the premire population center. So the electoral college system allows lesser states and population centers a bigger say in running the country. Without the EC the northeast would have the biggest control of elections leaving the south and midwest with very little imput into elections.

Erm, surely the number of people is what should determine the election, not the states. If there really are fewer people in those states, surely its fair that they have a lesser say?

I've been saying for the longest time, there are less black people so they defiantly shouldn't have as important say (Sarcasm)

I don't get what you mean. What I meant was... lets say state X had 100 people, all of whom support candidate A. State Y has only 50 people, but an equal number of electoral college votes. Hence, efficiently, the votes of people in state Y have twice as much strength as in state X

 

[Doug]

....
he was cought SINGING about bombing iran. you dont fucking do that if you have the power to make it happen unless your visibly intoxicated, and even then it is not to be looked upon kindly. but thats just him, lets move on to his running mate
...
she incites fanaticism and KILLING the other guy
...
oh, and the small issue of murdering your political opponets but keeping plausible deniability, no bad guy has ever done that. ever. she had a fucking exorcism.

O....k. Can we have sources for these please? Singing about bombing Iran, I hadn't heard about. Nor have I heard about Sarah Palin encouraging people to assasinate Obama (although I do know they continuously call him a terrorist for some connection with a black supremist or something.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

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.

There is a huge substantive difference between 40 and 95

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

That IS W. though.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

O....k. Can we have sources for these please? Singing about bombing Iran, I hadn't heard about.

Johnn delivers. [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg]

He begins singing at 00:35 or so.

 

[Doug]

O....k. Can we have sources for these please? Singing about bombing Iran, I hadn't heard about.

Johnn delivers. [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg]

He begins singing at 00:35 or so.

Yikes, ok, he's abit insane to say the least. As for Iran, the country is more complex than the average person believe - whilst it isn't exactly free and democratic, its far from a wholy repressive society. As for what the do in Iraq, its abit hypocritical of the US to blame them, given the US invaded the country from half-way around the world.

 

[Saskwach]

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.

There is a huge substantive difference between 40 and 95

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

That IS W. though.

I was comparing 40 to 67, although I assume Obama's record of yea to nay has stayed about the same through the years? Whether it has or hasn't doesn't really matter, though, as Obama's similarities to Bush aren't a matter of discussion.
As for what "IS W." I's reply that that IS politics, and W. is merely another politician. It's a sad necessity of politics, but everyone does it - the argument is only over how much. The point, though, is that using some spin does not make you W, or every damn one of those Congressmen, Democrat or Republican, are little Bushes in training.

 

[BigKingBob]

We, the Obamalites, forecast a crushing victory, therefore we dont need to act like haters.

What happend hear is that Obama has a lead in MULTIPLE states, while mccain is high suport in some states.

The exact oposite of the bush vs algore fiasco from years ago.

But doesnt the entire outcome of the US election depend on the results from a very small number of states? (Like 5 or less)

Obama could stil easily lose this thing, I dont want him to but I can see it happening.

Your electoral college system really does suck ass

my electorate system? Im English xD

I just follow the race and like Obama, looks like he will win too. Unlike the last time i backed Al.

Ah! Apologies from a fellow englishman! I just tend to presume that everyone on the tubes is a yank.

Though our constituency system also leaves something to be desired aswell. I can see why we have it and how it makes sense, but I would prefer it if the house of lords was replaced with a second elected house that was voted in by PR.

NONO! DONT TALK LIKE THAT ABOUT THE LORDS!

Someone might hear you and act on that bad advice xD

The house of lords is a heredatort role and a life membership role, people in it have to be put there the way they are already, because people dont want to see the lords become a weaker version of the house of commons.

Some of them are chosen, some are appointed, and some are heredatory.

DONT FIDDLE ANYMORE WITH THE LORDS!

But its the fact that people that we have not chosen or voted for get a say in our government that annoys me, why should they be allowed to influence our laws more than me just because there great great great great (etc) grandad was a bigger murdering bastard than mine was?

Besides, if the lords were voted in then all the blocks on their power could be removed. So then we would have a second functioning house of government, instead of the vestigial appendix of a house that the lords has become.