McCain?

[Johnn Johnston]

I'm quite uneasy about how stable the world would be if he took over. Skip to 00:35 in the video if you don't understand why.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

 

[OuroborosChoked]

I'm quite uneasy about how stable the world would be if he took over. Skip to 00:35 in the video if you don't understand why.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

LOL! Violence!

Yech. Sickening.

 

[Lazzi]

Im all for universal health care (a perfect copy of the british NHS woudl make me perfectly giddy), but he still makes me uneasy.

Hopefully not a carbon copy. We've got some serious flaws in it over here. But, if they could be sorted out, I see no reason why a universal healthcare system shouldn't be set up (provided the people treated had not brought it upon themselves).

A Carbon copy of your would still be much better than what we have here (considering the fact that i have the means for a tax increase and dont partact in paricularly risky behaivor).

Every system can uses improvement, if it didnt then people wouldnt care about it.

 

[mike1921]

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.

Bullshit.

The bigger states still have much more power than the little ones.

. Without the EC the northeast would have the biggest control of elections leaving the south and midwest with very little imput into elections.

And if they have the most population what's the problem with that. More people should equal more power. And, it's "we the people" not "we the states".

All the EC does is make it so your vote does not count if the state you're in is against the candidate you want in office.

 

[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?

 

[Redlac]

I like McCain, he makes good Oven Chips.

..and now I've lost most of the Americans with an obscure reference.

On a more serious note, I'm not fussed which one wins. Actions speak louder than words, and how many politicians over the years have said they'll do something and not delivered? I'll be happy whoever gets in as long as they don't do something ridiculously stupid.

And just to clarify, 'ridiculously stupid' isn't just a reference to another daft war. Mucking up a good country counts too.

*Wishes his Cousins across the pond all the best*

 

[OuroborosChoked]

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?

Question! Semi-related to what Doug said, how do states figure into direct (non-electoral college) voting anyway? Wouldn't it come down to each person's vote counting?

I'm against the electoral college. It makes no sense at all.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

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?

Not necessarily.
Say candidate X has views that would put State Y at a disadvantage. Now if State Y has very few people in it, then State Y wouldn't have much of a say in the election.

The electoral college helps prevent this from happening.

 

[mike1921]

No it doesn't. State Y still has very little say. And even without the EC, the people in state Y will vote against it and they'll still have a somewhat similar effect than they would if the EC is still in place.

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Question! Semi-related to what Doug said, how do states figure into direct (non-electoral college) voting anyway? Wouldn't it come down to each person's vote counting?

I'm against the electoral college. It makes no sense at all.

I'll explain this as best as I can remember...

With Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Collage_(United_States)

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

No it doesn't. State Y still has very little say.

It helps.

It's not perfect though.

 

[Alex_P]

Electoral college:

Even if you're really convinced that individual votes from sparsely-populated states should count for more because otherwise local issues will be neglected or whatever, you have to admit that running everything under an "all-or-nothing" part of the system is absolutely stupid. You could just use a majority-voting scheme but weight the votes using the current electoral-vote-allocation system. A vote from a sparsely-populated state would still be worth more than a vote from a densely-populated state (unfairly), but at least winning a state 51-48 wouldn't be the same as having the unanimous support of its population.

-- Alex

 

[mike1921]

No it doesn't. State Y still has very little say.

It helps.

No it does not.

 

[Doug]

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

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

So what if he did lie?

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

Watch the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares". 3 Part series tells full history of the neo-cons and al-qaida. You have been lied to quite a lot, for quite a long time.

McCain will continue to lie. He will 'Bomb bomb Iran'. People like you may even call out for him to do it, as the White House pumps out fear-mongering reports. The world will be a sh*ttier place.

The concept that America is a nation with a unique destiny - to be the force for good and freedom in the world, where evil enemies threaten its very existence and must be defeated - is an invented one. Developed by the pre-neo-con political philosopher Leonard Strauss, as he believed the people of a nation required a mythological element to their identity, to give ordinary people a sense of purpose, a collective destiny, in order to provide social cohesion and order, to combat the excesses of liberalism; the truth need only be known by the intellectual ruling class, who apparently guide America towards its global manifest destiny. Look into your own history, this myth is less than 60 years old. The notion that Al-Qaida is a mafia like organisation with sleeper cells in over 50 countries, is similarly a false invention, devised after the first WTC bombing so that Bin Laden could be prosecuted in his absence back in the 90's - a false invention which stuck, since it gives us an identifiable enemy. The real threat, the real Al-Qaida is the ideology which creates suicide bombers, and the Western World has entirely failed to combat that. Probably because bombing people does not really bring them round to your way of thinking.

The rhetoric being used today by governments around the world, not just the bush administration closely resembles that used by Reagan and the neo-cons in the 1980's, after the falsified CIA reports were used to justify greater military spending (Star Wars - bad joke).
....

Indeed - I just hope they catch up soon and reach the state of development we have (i.e. we don't believe we have a destiny anymore, nor do we believe our policians, heh )

And yes, you're correct - Al'Quada (however its spelt) was funded by the CIA (I believe it was to combat USSR (Russian) invasion. But regardless, what they created with the Pakistanians was a group of warped fundamentalist killers from the ophans and refugees of the war.

Further, Saddam Hussian was a CIA operative, the USA supports several dictatorships because they offer military operation bases (including the guy who boiled people alive if they opposited him).

Also, in Afghanistan, they've appointed a war criminal to head the Afghan army.

American can't really say its a 'force for good and justice' in the world. And Iraq had nothing to do with Al'Quada (is does now, given the US invasion let them in).

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

No it doesn't. State Y still has very little say.

It helps.

No it does not.

Fine. It helps a little.

BUT IT ISN'T PERFECT.

 

[mike1921]

Fine. It helps a little.

BUT IT ISN'T PERFECT.

It might help a little. POSSIBLY!

And, it's not perfect, it is bullshit. All it does is make it possible for you to win without the majority vote.

And regardless of whether or not it helps state Y, they have low population. THEY SHOULD HAVE VERY LITTLE TO SAY.

I support Obama. I'd rather have McCain win by the majority than have Obama win by the EC

 

[AuntyEthel]

The fact that the warmongering Colin Powell doesn't even support McCain can't be a good sign.

Though whenever I hear McCain's name I always think of ovenbake chips.

 

[zirnitra]

I'm not American, but if McCain gets in I will loose all faith in humanity and likely kill myself out of disgust and will be making that fact very clear in my suicide note.

Here is a question why do you care who wins office in a forign state, unless you are Iran it dosent really affect you.

That's hardly true and you know it, my country and yours have a 'special relationship' which spawned from you lending us the odd 8 billion to build a welfare state. and us being forced to give you a lot of scientific data after a certain memorable conflict. as the US is the only super power at the moment it's policy's affect the entire planet and not just the residents of it, my country being especially sensitive. granted not as sensitive as certain middle eastern countries.

 

[CIA]

Saying McCain is a xerox of W is about as mistaken as believing Obama is a Muslim. And the old "Republicans/conservatives don't know jack about the world outside the US" line is wearing thin. While there are many who are like that, the same is true for the other side. You'll find that lots of conservatives actually see the world clearer than they're given credit for - they just don't wear the rose-tinted glasses that are in vogue.
As for my view on McCain - mixed. He excites me equally as much as he depresses me. This sentiment is probably very widespread, so no one knows quite what they think of the man. Hence, they don't talk much about him. He's also a Republican, which doesn't get you much air-time on the 'net. Obama, though, attracts opinions like a magnet; everyone talks about him. Is he the Great White/Black Hope? Is he in league with anti-American crazies? Will he put America back on track? Will he burn US preeminence to the ground with his loony liberal views? Stay tuned to find out.
McCain, whatever his particular strengths and weaknesses, is the 'same old, same old'. Obama, whether he is or isn't, looks like something different - both figuratively and literally.

This is one of the most spot-on analyses of the current situation I've seen from any forum.
Now, as for McCain hate, I do not have it. I don't hate Obama either. I just hate many more of Obama's ideas than McCain's ideas, and as such, would rather have McCain in office, though in all honesty, I'd rather bring Reagan back from the dead, as Reagan is one of my favorite political figures in history.

I love your avatar!
But I hate your politics. Ronald Regan was deteriorating in office.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Question! Semi-related to what Doug said, how do states figure into direct (non-electoral college) voting anyway? Wouldn't it come down to each person's vote counting?

I'm against the electoral college. It makes no sense at all.

I'll explain this as best as I can remember...

With Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Collage_(United_States)

Okay. I read most of that article, but it doesn't address that representative voting isn't democratic. It touches on inaccuracy of representative voting, but doesn't explain that philosophically, if your personal vote may not count, it's not technically a democracy.

We have the technology today. We can make it one person, one vote. There is no need to add unneccessary bias to the system. Even if that resulted in candidates only stumping in large urban areas, there IS mass media to show the speeches either live or recorded.

The electoral college is outdated and unneeded.