BF2S Forums Democrats complicate things

Hey if people want Obama or Hillary, I say fine. . . .

You fucks think Bush is bad. . .  lol!! Wait till these miserable pricks take office!

I HAVE A QUESTION. . .  Who do the democrats think is going to pay for their "social program revolution" (principally "universal heath care")?? Seriously. . . . Who the fuck is going to fund that? Is it fundable?  I havent heard ONCE what the democrats have to say about immigration and their plans on combating it. . . .

Bottom line, if you want a super liberal, with absolutely nothing to show for his career in the senate, vote Obama! If you want a devisive, arrogant, sullen cunt, vote Hillary!  If you want a maverick, experienced politician/war hero with questionable conservative values vote McCain. 

Personally, I am writing myself in as the next president (I'm not kidding)!! Fuck, I couldnt be much worse than this motley crew and BELIEVE me we would have the illegal immigration problem solved in my first term. . . .

Last edited by fadedsteve (2008-03-05 02:36:29)

fadedsteve wrote:

Hey if people want Obama or Hillary, I say fine. . . .

You fucks think Bush is bad. . .  lol!! Wait till these miserable pricks take office!

I HAVE A QUESTION. . .  Who do the democrats think is going to pay for their "social program revolution" (principally "universal heath care")?? Seriously. . . . Who the fuck is going to fund that? Is it fundable?  I havent heard ONCE what the democrats have to say about immigration and their plans on combating it. . . .

The "rich" are going to fund it...

B.Schuss wrote:

shooting them in face with a shotgun is not an acceptable political solution, steve...

It isn't? Awww...

*puts away boomstick*

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

This will be just like in 93 when Bush and Perot were running splitting the vote allowing Clinton (Bill) to win.

I doubt Hillary or Obama would go independent to split the vote.

I don't see Obama doing it because he is still young and a few more years left.

Clinton on the other had I could see doing it. She is nearing the end of her political usefulness.

Turquoise wrote:

That may have been the original intention of the system, but nowadays, it only serves to promote special interest groups and lobbyists.

News flash...the electoral system has nothing to do with promoting special interest groups and lobbyists. That's politicians, not the system itself. That kind of corruption would exist without the electoral college system, as well.

Turquoise wrote:

It overvalues rural votes while undervaluing urban ones.

Do you not see just how wrong that statement is? It implies that an urban vote is worth more than a rural vote. What the system does is mitigate the tendency to "mob rule" by giving the less populated states a voice on somewhat of a level playing field with more populous states...or just large cities. Yes, there is some "weighting" due to the number of representatives, but it keeps the orders of magnitude differences out of play. Which is a good thing.

Turquoise wrote:

Also, your suggestion is wrong about a popular vote.  You would have to at least poll the 10 largest states for around half of the countries' total electorate.  Even then, the 10 largest states are evenly divided between red states and blue states.   California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan are blue.  Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina are red.  With the way that our last 2 presidential elections have been so close (and the way that this upcoming one will be as well), you'd have to poll at least the 15 or 20 biggest states for a decisive outcome.  Chances are, you'd still need to poll every state before you really know who the people want as a nation.

One aspect you lose here is that if you go with a purely popular vote, then you take away some of the states' inherent power. It is the states that determine the electors, so it is the states that determine the President of the United States. For someone who seems to believe that the power of the states should be increased while decreasing the power of the federal government, you seem to be advocating the exact opposite when it comes to electing the President.

Turquoise wrote:

So, if anything, a popular vote would just be a more accurate way to determine elections without all the fuzzy math and corruption involved.

A popular vote won't do anything about corruption...the politicians themselves have to change for that to change.

democrats are dumb

FEOS wrote:

News flash...the electoral system has nothing to do with promoting special interest groups and lobbyists. That's politicians, not the system itself. That kind of corruption would exist without the electoral college system, as well.

No doubt, but electors are easier to corrupt than the public as a whole.

FEOS wrote:

Do you not see just how wrong that statement is? It implies that an urban vote is worth more than a rural vote. What the system does is mitigate the tendency to "mob rule" by giving the less populated states a voice on somewhat of a level playing field with more populous states...or just large cities. Yes, there is some "weighting" due to the number of representatives, but it keeps the orders of magnitude differences out of play. Which is a good thing.

One man should equal one vote.  Anything other than this is simply oppressive.  You call it mob rule, but I call it democracy.

FEOS wrote:

One aspect you lose here is that if you go with a purely popular vote, then you take away some of the states' inherent power. It is the states that determine the electors, so it is the states that determine the President of the United States. For someone who seems to believe that the power of the states should be increased while decreasing the power of the federal government, you seem to be advocating the exact opposite when it comes to electing the President.

I prefer more states' rights when it comes to policymaking, not when it comes to electing people.

FEOS wrote:

A popular vote won't do anything about corruption...the politicians themselves have to change for that to change.

Again, it's easier to corrupt our current system than a true democracy.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Do you not see just how wrong that statement is? It implies that an urban vote is worth more than a rural vote. What the system does is mitigate the tendency to "mob rule" by giving the less populated states a voice on somewhat of a level playing field with more populous states...or just large cities. Yes, there is some "weighting" due to the number of representatives, but it keeps the orders of magnitude differences out of play. Which is a good thing.

One man should equal one vote.  Anything other than this is simply oppressive.  You call it mob rule, but I call it democracy.

I agree with you in principle on most every point. I think a popular vote-only system would work, but in order to make it work, we have to look at the benefits of the electoral college system (and there are some) and make sure we don't lose those in the new system.

But it won't happen any time soon, as it will take an amendment to the Constitution.

B.Schuss wrote:

what exactly are the benefits of the electoral college system, if I may ask ?

All I ever hear about is its major disadvantage. That the candidate who wins the popular vote still doesn't become president, depending on who wins which state. And that doesn't sound too democratic.

It prevents highly populated states from determining--pretty much on their own--who the president of ALL the states should be. The Constitution is focused on the power of the states, which comes from the people of those states. But it is the United States of America, not the United Population of America.

The electoral college was put into place (and still exists) to give ALL states a pseudo-equal say in who runs the country.

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

ATG wrote:

I believe that if the Democrats manage a win they will preside over the second Great Depression because the unfunded social programs they are selling now will never be funded, and as the U.S. economy goes, so goes the world economy.
They will excuse the coming 8 years of their failure on the eight years of Bush.

http://arsepoetica.typepad.com/blog/ima … ass1_3.jpg

I think you called it... Unfortunately.

agreed.

I hate being right sometimes.

Man if you prediction power look at this from 1 year 3 months ago

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Right now the economy and the dollar are floating and there is nothing that the fed or the government can do about solving the problem. I bet there more than a few people in the Whitehouse that are praying that something else does not happen like the American public discovering the truth that the entire US economy is on the bubble. The US economy has become a talk shop and the worst is yet to come.

I think I even beat Cramer on that one.