Very true, and I think he's not literally a mental retarded and IMO he doesn't qualify to be president. Regarding the two elections, at least you must admit that something smells fishy.comet241 wrote:
maybe you should take a little of your own advice. shouting conspiracy isn't really debating, it's an excuse. we're here to debate how smart the guy is, not whether you think the election was "stolen" as some claimsergeriver wrote:
I have no intention of doing such thing. I'm fine here. Thanks anyway. If you can't take an opinion, the don't be in a debate forum. The people have spoken, yes. Good for you.comet241 wrote:
please read my post in full. claiming fraud and conspiracy is just the losers way of dealing with defeat. I gave this advice earlier. if you are so disappointed with the results, move here, gain citizenship, throw your vote in with the hundreds of millions of others and vote him out of office.
What? he's already been re-elected?
well, then..... the people have spoken.
Poll
Is Bush an Idiot?
| Yes | 69% | 69% - 377 | ||||
| No | 30% | 30% - 166 | ||||
| Total: 543 | ||||||
i myself dont like how the first one panned out. personally I feel that the electoral system needs to be reviewed/updated if one can get more popular votes and still lose. but dont think that is because of something fishy. it isn't the first time that that particular situation has occurred in the united states either. so yes, i think something should be done about the electoral college, but i dont think anything fishy happened in the first election. several states were within a couple thousand votes. it was a close election, thats what i feel.
the second one, it was close as well, but not like the first. the issues that democrats, in particular raised, on ohio, mostly, should be addressed in any situation as important as a national election. i feel that they were. the reason that nothing came of them is because the claims were either rediculous or had no/not enough evidence to back it.
i would like to see the situations regarding the second election that cause people worry (evidence, websites), and we are well on our way to an adult conversation here then. then we can address those issues individually.
the second one, it was close as well, but not like the first. the issues that democrats, in particular raised, on ohio, mostly, should be addressed in any situation as important as a national election. i feel that they were. the reason that nothing came of them is because the claims were either rediculous or had no/not enough evidence to back it.
i would like to see the situations regarding the second election that cause people worry (evidence, websites), and we are well on our way to an adult conversation here then. then we can address those issues individually.
We agree in that the electoral system sucks. If a guy gets more votes he wins. Period.comet241 wrote:
i myself dont like how the first one panned out. personally I feel that the electoral system needs to be reviewed/updated if one can get more popular votes and still lose. but dont think that is because of something fishy. it isn't the first time that that particular situation has occurred in the united states either. so yes, i think something should be done about the electoral college, but i dont think anything fishy happened in the first election. several states were within a couple thousand votes. it was a close election, thats what i feel.
the second one, it was close as well, but not like the first. the issues that democrats, in particular raised, on ohio, mostly, should be addressed in any situation as important as a national election. i feel that they were. the reason that nothing came of them is because the claims were either rediculous or had no/not enough evidence to back it.
i would like to see the situations regarding the second election that cause people worry (evidence, websites), and we are well on our way to an adult conversation here then. then we can address those issues individually.
I think, the first election was too close. In fact Gore got more votes than Bush, if I remember well about 500k. The second one in a direct system Bush would be the president without question, as in the first he would not.
The democrats don't have any convincing proof, what proof do you want me to address.
ill start a separate thread about this. ive seen reports/evidence that show things like ohio was rigged and the like. let me start that thread now so this one can get back on track.
thank god for the electoral college
Dude, I don't know if you've been smoking some weed or what, but all I know is your thought pattern isn't logical.cpt.fass1 wrote:
3) to tell you the truth right now I have absolutly no friggen idea, But I know I'm paying for it and my kids will be too, and probably theirs. Third world country status he we come. I think our biggest cash crop is tabacco and we're in a feverish way trying to stop it.
1) The US is the single most powerful country in the world. PERIOD. Who else could fight us (on their own) and beat us? No one.
2) President Bush is the highest leader of the United States so that makes him the most powerful man in the world.
3) The United States is far from Third World status. It would take nuclear war to bomb us that far back. If you own a TV you are richer than a huge percentage of the worlds population. If you own two then you are richer than something like 90% of the world. Who in America doesn't have a TV? We have them in our freakin CARS!
4) I'm not sure where tobacco has anything to do with this discussion.
Why do you say that? They don't do anything anymore. After all, with the exception of 2 states the electors have no choice but to give their vote to the candidate their districts elected.Horseman 77 wrote:
thank god for the electoral college
Israel could.Capt_Flapjack wrote:
1) The US is the single most powerful country in the world. PERIOD. Who else could fight us (on their own) and beat us? No one.
I think there's a good argument in favor of the buffer provided by the electoral college. In other countries, soap opera actors (Philippines) and lewd comedians (Venezuela) are viable candidates, even though they have ZERO political experience.
It's a bit of a mindfuck when the electoral vote doesn't agree with the common vote. But at the same time, I think average American intelligence is going downhill. I don't want a dazzled populace to vote Paris Hilton into office 50 years from now.
It's a bit of a mindfuck when the electoral vote doesn't agree with the common vote. But at the same time, I think average American intelligence is going downhill. I don't want a dazzled populace to vote Paris Hilton into office 50 years from now.
So, you prefer in the office a guy who gets less votes than the other guy. If you need to cover your ass in case the people elect an idiot using the electoral college, you better start doing something with your education system dude. I don't think the electoral college can decide over the people it's the right thing. I didn't expect such opinion from you.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I think there's a good argument in favor of the buffer provided by the electoral college. In other countries, soap opera actors (Philippines) and lewd comedians (Venezuela) are viable candidates, even though they have ZERO political experience.
It's a bit of a mindfuck when the electoral vote doesn't agree with the common vote. But at the same time, I think average American intelligence is going downhill. I don't want a dazzled populace to vote Paris Hilton into office 50 years from now.
Bush isn't the smartest president ever, we all know that.. And he has some strange ideas as well..
Wasn't the reason for the Iraq war that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction?
Why the hell would anyone want to start a war against someone because the other one had such weapons??
I believe bush knew they did not have those weapons, he just wanted to finish off what his daddy couldn't finish, that is get Saddam Hussein to court.
Wasn't the reason for the Iraq war that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction?
Why the hell would anyone want to start a war against someone because the other one had such weapons??
I believe bush knew they did not have those weapons, he just wanted to finish off what his daddy couldn't finish, that is get Saddam Hussein to court.
I don't have a solid opinion either way. I'm agnostic on the issue. My point was to show arguments in favor of the electoral college, and to try to think about both sides. To me there's no concrete best practice between our current system and a popular majority vote.sergeriver wrote:
So, you prefer in the office a guy who gets less votes than the other guy. If you need to cover your ass in case the people elect an idiot using the electoral college, you better start doing something with your education system dude. I don't think the electoral college can decide over the people it's the right thing. I didn't expect such opinion from you.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I think there's a good argument in favor of the buffer provided by the electoral college. In other countries, soap opera actors (Philippines) and lewd comedians (Venezuela) are viable candidates, even though they have ZERO political experience.
It's a bit of a mindfuck when the electoral vote doesn't agree with the common vote. But at the same time, I think average American intelligence is going downhill. I don't want a dazzled populace to vote Paris Hilton into office 50 years from now.
the title is so inormative
You must realize only this fact. If one guy gets 5 million more votes than the other guy, is it fair that the second guy wins the election??The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I don't have a solid opinion either way. I'm agnostic on the issue. My point was to show arguments in favor of the electoral college, and to try to think about both sides. To me there's no concrete best practice between our current system and a popular majority vote.sergeriver wrote:
So, you prefer in the office a guy who gets less votes than the other guy. If you need to cover your ass in case the people elect an idiot using the electoral college, you better start doing something with your education system dude. I don't think the electoral college can decide over the people it's the right thing. I didn't expect such opinion from you.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I think there's a good argument in favor of the buffer provided by the electoral college. In other countries, soap opera actors (Philippines) and lewd comedians (Venezuela) are viable candidates, even though they have ZERO political experience.
It's a bit of a mindfuck when the electoral vote doesn't agree with the common vote. But at the same time, I think average American intelligence is going downhill. I don't want a dazzled populace to vote Paris Hilton into office 50 years from now.
I don't think so dude.
If he's president and an idiot...and you'll never be even close to coming president, you must be a complete ingrate that can't spell or read who was probably bore from your own sister. Lay off him...he's president and you should respect that, not make jokes about him and call him names because he doesn't articulate well. Seriously...GET OVER IT! YOU LOST THE VOTE BOTH TIMES. In 2008 however, you'll get a chance to vote for someone again.
Bush is a flaming idiot, yet obviously not as big of a moron as either Al Gore or John Kerry. Better to be an Idiot, than to lose to an Idiot.
I can understand your point.sergeriver wrote:
You must realize only this fact. If one guy gets 5 million more votes than the other guy, is it fair that the second guy wins the election??The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I don't have a solid opinion either way. I'm agnostic on the issue. My point was to show arguments in favor of the electoral college, and to try to think about both sides. To me there's no concrete best practice between our current system and a popular majority vote.sergeriver wrote:
So, you prefer in the office a guy who gets less votes than the other guy. If you need to cover your ass in case the people elect an idiot using the electoral college, you better start doing something with your education system dude. I don't think the electoral college can decide over the people it's the right thing. I didn't expect such opinion from you.
I don't think so dude.
But what about this scenario: in the 2008 election, young people decide that politics are bullshit, so they start a massive myspace.com internet campaign to elect Paris Hilton as a joke write-in candidate. Paris Hilton actually starts campaigning as a semi-ironic self-marketing campaign. She gets more publicity than the actual candidates. People start voting for her because they think it's funny or because she's hot, or because they just want to give a big FUCK YOU to American politics. She wins with 50.000001% of the vote. Would that be an acceptable situation? No, not to me.
Neither system is ideal. Both have arguments for and against them.
hey wattaya know a 32 percent approval rating for the poll
So you are saying that most of young people are fuckin idiots? Who with an IQ above 100 would vote for that bitch? You must give people more credit. Yes, they voted Bush, he got 3 million more votes than Kerry, but Bush had the Republican party behind. And to be honest, Bush ain't Paris Hilton. The guy is smarter that that bitch. Do you think an independent candidate could even been close to a republican or democrat in the polls? Not gonna happen. In 2004 Bush got 62 million and Kerry 59 million votes, Nader only 240k. So, if Paris'd decide to be candidate she'd be voted only by Fred Durst.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I can understand your point.sergeriver wrote:
You must realize only this fact. If one guy gets 5 million more votes than the other guy, is it fair that the second guy wins the election??The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I don't have a solid opinion either way. I'm agnostic on the issue. My point was to show arguments in favor of the electoral college, and to try to think about both sides. To me there's no concrete best practice between our current system and a popular majority vote.
I don't think so dude.
But what about this scenario: in the 2008 election, young people decide that politics are bullshit, so they start a massive myspace.com internet campaign to elect Paris Hilton as a joke write-in candidate. Paris Hilton actually starts campaigning as a semi-ironic self-marketing campaign. She gets more publicity than the actual candidates. People start voting for her because they think it's funny or because she's hot, or because they just want to give a big FUCK YOU to American politics. She wins with 50.000001% of the vote. Would that be an acceptable situation? No, not to me.
Neither system is ideal. Both have arguments for and against them.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-08-24 17:32:42)
I will say that Bush probably has less cum in his stomach than Paris Hilton
I'm giving you a possible scenario, not one that I believe IS going to happen. I could have said "angry elderly people" or "militant Christians". It doesn't matter. It was just an example to show that popular vote is not unequivocally the best way for a country to elect a leader.sergeriver wrote:
So you are saying that most of young people are fuckin idiots? Who with an IQ above 100 would vote for that bitch? You must give people more credit. Yes, they voted Bush, he got 3 million more votes than Kerry, but Bush had the Republican party behind. And to be honest, Bush ain't Paris Hilton. The guy is smarter that that bitch. Do you think an independent candidate could even been close to a republican or democrat in the polls? Not gonna happen. In 2004 Bush got 62 million and Kerry 59 million votes, Nader only 240k. So, if Paris'd decide to be candidate she'd be voted only by Fred Durst.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I can understand your point.sergeriver wrote:
You must realize only this fact. If one guy gets 5 million more votes than the other guy, is it fair that the second guy wins the election??
I don't think so dude.
But what about this scenario: in the 2008 election, young people decide that politics are bullshit, so they start a massive myspace.com internet campaign to elect Paris Hilton as a joke write-in candidate. Paris Hilton actually starts campaigning as a semi-ironic self-marketing campaign. She gets more publicity than the actual candidates. People start voting for her because they think it's funny or because she's hot, or because they just want to give a big FUCK YOU to American politics. She wins with 50.000001% of the vote. Would that be an acceptable situation? No, not to me.
Neither system is ideal. Both have arguments for and against them.
My point: I believe that the popular vote is not the concrete best way, but it has good and bad things about it. I also believe the electoral college is not the concrete best way but it has good and bad things about it. I will not shed tears if we switch to a popular vote, nor will I want to stab myself in the face if we keep the electoral college, which has served us pretty well so far.
one word: IDIOT!
LOL
LOL
Or instead of playing devils advocate, maybe it would actually help our sociaty(read my sig sober as hell) and young people would start taking more of an active roll in the government, and start actually voting. We have Pdiddy f-ing doing rock the vote to get kids interested in voteing.. Maybe if their vote actually counted they would step up and do something.. If you dig a hole and in the morning the hole is filled with dirt and you keep doing it how long intill you stop?The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I'm giving you a possible scenario, not one that I believe IS going to happen. I could have said "angry elderly people" or "militant Christians". It doesn't matter. It was just an example to show that popular vote is not unequivocally the best way for a country to elect a leader.sergeriver wrote:
So you are saying that most of young people are fuckin idiots? Who with an IQ above 100 would vote for that bitch? You must give people more credit. Yes, they voted Bush, he got 3 million more votes than Kerry, but Bush had the Republican party behind. And to be honest, Bush ain't Paris Hilton. The guy is smarter that that bitch. Do you think an independent candidate could even been close to a republican or democrat in the polls? Not gonna happen. In 2004 Bush got 62 million and Kerry 59 million votes, Nader only 240k. So, if Paris'd decide to be candidate she'd be voted only by Fred Durst.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
I can understand your point.
But what about this scenario: in the 2008 election, young people decide that politics are bullshit, so they start a massive myspace.com internet campaign to elect Paris Hilton as a joke write-in candidate. Paris Hilton actually starts campaigning as a semi-ironic self-marketing campaign. She gets more publicity than the actual candidates. People start voting for her because they think it's funny or because she's hot, or because they just want to give a big FUCK YOU to American politics. She wins with 50.000001% of the vote. Would that be an acceptable situation? No, not to me.
Neither system is ideal. Both have arguments for and against them.
My point: I believe that the popular vote is not the concrete best way, but it has good and bad things about it. I also believe the electoral college is not the concrete best way but it has good and bad things about it. I will not shed tears if we switch to a popular vote, nor will I want to stab myself in the face if we keep the electoral college, which has served us pretty well so far.
1) China has a better military and econimy then us now, what makes us number 1?Capt_Flapjack wrote:
Dude, I don't know if you've been smoking some weed or what, but all I know is your thought pattern isn't logical.cpt.fass1 wrote:
3) to tell you the truth right now I have absolutly no friggen idea, But I know I'm paying for it and my kids will be too, and probably theirs. Third world country status he we come. I think our biggest cash crop is tabacco and we're in a feverish way trying to stop it.
1) The US is the single most powerful country in the world. PERIOD. Who else could fight us (on their own) and beat us? No one.
2) President Bush is the highest leader of the United States so that makes him the most powerful man in the world.
3) The United States is far from Third World status. It would take nuclear war to bomb us that far back. If you own a TV you are richer than a huge percentage of the worlds population. If you own two then you are richer than something like 90% of the world. Who in America doesn't have a TV? We have them in our freakin CARS!
4) I'm not sure where tobacco has anything to do with this discussion.
2) To have true power you must have respect first, if the majority of a bunch of kids(and adults) playing a war game think he's an idiot, who else do you think thinks the same?
3) and we have a resonable high rate of homeless people on our streets. How long untill we have 5% rich people and 95% poor? What is your point if you don't wake up and relize how much our econimy is based on trade with other country's and call for change we're screwed..
4) I'm trying to figure out what our exports are. Iraq has oil and that's where money comes in what do we export to other country's?
1) Thats your assumption, and I guess I haven't done much to clear that up. What do you mean by turning ever more moderates into extremists, wtf are you talking about. I think Islam is a fairly decent religion and most Muslims are not extreme. I would wager that only .5% of Muslims are extremists. I don't see how that is making moderates into extremists, maybe next time you should ask rather than assume.CameronPoe wrote:
1) Your repsonse to terrorism is to blatantly ignore the root causes and fight it purely with violence, turning ever more moderates into extremists. I'm clear on that now. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
2) You are a propaganda monkey it seems. Serious Iraq-Al Qaeda co-operation is as much bunkum as the 'Bush administration did 9/11' bunkum. I can remember the US media: 'an al qaeda man once received treatment in a Baghdad hospital'. OMG! Let's bomb Iraq! Saddam took a hardline against islamic extremists - such as Ansar Al Islam in the east of Kurdistan. He fought the Islamic Republic of Iran for 10 years for christ's sake. To use any of the ropey, dubious and tenuous links between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government as a pretext or justification to go to war with Iraq is a joke.
3) Try not quoting the neo-con voicepiece 'The Weekly Standard' in debates: it damages your credibility.
2) Propaganda monkey? Ok mature name calling......I can understand that there are SERIOUS doubts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, I will be the FIRST to admit that but no one has answered my god damned question yet so why the fuck am I even try to talk to you guys......try one more fucking time (and sorry that I might be a little pissed)
The answer should be self apparent, no one knows for sure, that is MY ONLY point.How do YOU know for SURE that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, that is my ONE and ONLY question to you. Lets see if you can answer it.
3) Didn't know it was such a bad publication, just found it by chance. Next time, maybe someone shouldn't fucking quote Loose Change, it REALLY damages ones credibility.