The Official US President Election Thread

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That is the most ridiculous conclusion I have ever heard.

It was meant to be ridiculous. What other reponse could there be to the statements Janny made. Remember "A Modest Proposal"? I don't believe the "wimp" label applies to any American president or party.

No - I don't think they were wimps - but the democratic party has CHANGED since the 60's - that is why Reagan left and went to the Republican. The democratic party I must agree with Janny on - has become the party of the flower children of the 60's. You are trying to compare too different times. There is a drastic change in the democratic party between the 50's and the 60's.

Actually Reagan left because he hated the unions after he was threatened by some leftist in the Screen Actors Guild leader. Many have left the Repubilcan party because it's radical shift. Many Democrats have left the party, particularly in the South, because the only reason they were dems was because Lincoln was GOP. Both parties tend to use wars started by the opposition as a point of criticism, especially if the wars don't go well. Just a few years ago the Republicans were screaming "Wag the Dog" about Bosnia and demanding a balanced budget. Hmmm.... what happened there?

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I know you don't believe that -

Please stop trying to read my mind and at least wait for me to verbalize my own opinion.

Maybe I have a plan to join with India and sweep through Pakistan and Iran, and clear out the Arabian peninsula. Thier massive ground troops and hatred of the Pakis, and our great technology and wealth. We could control the entire of SW asia within and year or two. BWAHAHAHA!!!!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That isn't true - because they would just concentrate more heavily in the more populace area to gain those 500,000. Between Philadelphia, NJ and NY (roughly a 100 mile radius) live 30+ million people. All they have to do is concentrate in this 10% of the US population center to gain that small 500,000 number. They don't have to crisscross the country like they do now. 7 states contain over 50% of the US population - those are the states that will ALWAYS be in charge of the election. Right now - any state can be a turning point in the elections.

that assumes that a candidate could get 80-90% or more of the vote in those 7 states... which is simply never going to happen

even in the reagan/carter election the popular vote was 51%/41%... a landslide in electoral concerns, a decent win in popular terms... but if it was the popular vote only that mattered... reagan would have been forced to pay a lot of attention to those smaller states to pull that 10%... and if you assume that most who did not vote for reagan would have voted for carter, the numbers are even smaller

look at bush/gore 2000... even in bush's home state of texas things went about 3.8mil bush to 2.5mil gore... that leaves a 1.3mil difference... iowa had a total of 1.2mil voters that same year

your theory assumes that states vote as a mostly unified population on a single agenda... which simply is not the case

the reality is that a democrat who lives in texas, or a republican who lives in massachusetts basically has no voice... with the popular vote, everyone has a voice, irregardless of what state they happen to live in

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

It was meant to be ridiculous. What other reponse could there be to the statements Janny made. Remember "A Modest Proposal"? I don't believe the "wimp" label applies to any American president or party.

I do not think that Kerry would be a stong leader against terrorism. I do not think that the democrats today really do take tough stands against enemies really. Clinton also had Somalia, where a few soldiers were killed and we bailed. When the world was pissed that we were going after bin Ladin and bombed the factory in the Sudan - Clinton backed down. That to me is the problem right now - and I do not think it would be in America's best interest to go with a presidential candidate who has basically said he would do the same thing.

Actually Reagan left because he hated the unions after he was threatened by some leftist in the Screen Actors Guild leader. Many have left the Repubilcan party because it's radical shift. Many Democrats have left the party, particularly in the South, because the only reason they were dems was because Lincoln was GOP. Both parties tend to use wars started by the opposition as a point of criticism, especially if the wars don't go well. Just a few years ago the Republicans were screaming "Wag the Dog" about Bosnia and demanding a balanced budget. Hmmm.... what happened there?

The thing is - there were MANY times during World War II and World War I and the Civil War and the Revolution that wars weren't going very well. What's different here is that people expect everything to go perfectly - that it would be over and done with in a year and we would have a model democracy in iraq. Now if the terrorists had NOT moved in - if they would let the rebuilding of Iraq take place - that would be happening. The terrorists aren't attacking Americans anymore - because they have realized we are not getting out. They however ARE attacking the aid workers and the people there to rebuild the country - because they know that as long as they can prevent that from happening they feel they can wear on the American public. That is their goal. Kerry just will give into this.

Also - regardless of why you might think reagan lef the democratic party - and there was a MUCH larger difference than just the unions - the democratic party has changed to the flower child party. As for the republicans being right wing - the majority aren't right wing - anymore than the majority of the democratic party is made up of socialists like Kucinich (sp).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

your theory assumes that states vote as a mostly unified population on a single agenda... which simply is not the case

I do not assume that states vote as a unified voice. But cities are mostly democratic - and that's where the larger populations are also.

the reality is that a democrat who lives in texas, or a republican who lives in massachusetts basically has no voice... with the popular vote, everyone has a voice, irregardless of what state they happen to live in

They do have a voice. We vote for who we think our state should vote for. I am voting for Bush in NJ - my vote counts even though most people seem to consider NJ to be a democratic state (right now it's 46% to 46%). We don't vote directly for president - we vote for who our state should vote for and I support that. It deals with state rights and it does protect smaller states. Under your scenario - the smalll states will NOT matter at all - nor will they EVER matter. Hawaii can never matter with a national vote. We are a federal government - not a national government. We are made up of individidual countries - with individual laws- under a central government. In NO election does the nation vote as a single body.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Please stop trying to read my mind and at least wait for me to verbalize my own opinion.

Why when you have verbalized it many times that you don't believe that Iraq will succeed as a democracy and that Afganistan and Iraq will have an influence on the other countries in the region.

Maybe I have a plan to join with India and sweep through Pakistan and Iran, and clear out the Arabian peninsula. Thier massive ground troops and hatred of the Pakis, and our great technology and wealth. We could control the entire of SW asia within and year or two. BWAHAHAHA!!!!

Then go for it if you so choose. But you're a democrat - so I'm sure after a while you'd be singing some sappy song about how we should all just "get along" and hold hands and meditate. "If we just negotiate and ask the terrorist what they want I'm sure we could stop all the fighting in the world."

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the reality is that a democrat who lives in texas, or a republican who lives in massachusetts basically has no voice... with the popular vote, everyone has a voice, irregardless of what state they happen to live in

This just IN - the Clintons have been aked to go to Hawaii to campaign for Kerry - so tell me under a national vote - would anyone REALLY care too much about Hawaii?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

This just IN - the Clintons have been aked to go to Hawaii to campaign for Kerry - so tell me under a national vote - would anyone REALLY care too much about Hawaii?

yes... if the last election was decided by popular vote i think bush would have been visiting every little backwater he could think of to drum up those 500,000 more votes... 200,000 went to gore from hawaii in 2000... if it was a popular vote, every one of those the opposing candidate could peel off would be worth something

i understand the concept of the electoral system... do you understand the concept of a popular vote?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

yes... if the last election was decided by popular vote i think bush would have been visiting every little backwater he could think of to drum up those 500,000 more votes... 200,000 went to gore from hawaii in 2000... if it was a popular vote, every one of those the opposing candidate could peel off would be worth something

No they wouldn't they could easily fight for those votes in the 200+million that makes up the continental US. Not have to fly 6 time zones for 500,000.

i understand the concept of the electoral system... do you understand the concept of a popular vote?

yes I do understand it - that's why i disagree with it. At one time I supported the popular vote - BEFORE I studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. We are not a NATIONAL government. I am for state rights - the states individually determine the president.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

yes I do understand it - that's why i disagree with it. At one time I supported the popular vote - BEFORE I studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. We are not a NATIONAL government. I am for state rights - the states individually determine the president.

if the popular vote is so bad, then why not institute electors on a state scale?

by your theory, politicians in NJ must spend all their attention on city dwellers and very very little on the small towns and suburbs... wouldn't it make more sense to have "electors" for each region?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if the popular vote is so bad, then why not institute electors on a state scale?

Becuase the state is not the federal government - which is made up of individual states with state rights. We do have districts where we vote for the our legislator in the state house. States and the nation in terms of electoral college are apples and oranges. The way New Jersey elects it's governor and ouir form of government is very different than massachusetts.

I can change the question back on you and say - why not just do away with states all together and just have one huge gigantic country with a very powerfull national government and no state governments at all - with no seperate laws. Do you REALLY think that will happen? Do you really think that would be the best for the country? I don't think that would be best for the country - just like I don't think that elimination of the electoral college would be best for the country. I also don't think there is much of a fear for the electoral college beiung done away with - becuase it will be too difficult to get the necessary amendment through the states - not to mention Congress.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Becuase the state is not the federal government - which is made up of individual states with state rights. We do have districts where we vote for the our legislator in the state house. States and the nation in terms of electoral college are apples and oranges. The way New Jersey elects it's governor and ouir form of government is very different than massachusetts.

and we have senators in the federal government... a system which actually does a much better job on the "small state" issue than a once-every-four-years presidential election... not apples and oranges at all, people's relationship to their representatives is the same no matter what the scale

are you saying it's ok that the small towns in NJ have no voice in the way a governor is elected?

I can change the question back on you and say - why not just do away with states all together and just have one huge gigantic country with a very powerfull national government and no state governments at all - with no seperate laws.

that's a whole lot more drastic than just doing away with the electoral college

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and we have senators in the federal government... a system which actually does a much better job on the "small state" issue than a once-every-four-years presidential election... not apples and oranges at all, people's relationship to their representatives is the same no matter what the scale

yes -w e do have representatives in Congress. That is because Congress reprresents the states. Your congressman represents YOUR interests - NOT New Jersey's. Congress is completely different than the president.

are you saying it's ok that the small towns in NJ have no voice in the way a governor is elected?

No - because most towns are small in NJ. Our largest city only has a couple hundred people. Trenton the capital only has 85,000.

that's a whole lot more drastic than just doing away with the electoral college

Why? there are so many reasons for the electoral college- not just one - that if you pull that out - the whole system of states and state rights starts to unravel.

I'm done talking about this - there is no sense in going around and around anymore in circles. I have stated my reasons why I am against national election for president, you claim I do not understand it - when I understand it all too well.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I do not think that Kerry would be a stong leader against terrorism. I do not think that the democrats today really do take tough stands against enemies really. Clinton also had Somalia, where a few soldiers were killed and we bailed. When the world was pissed that we were going after bin Ladin and bombed the factory in the Sudan - Clinton backed down. That to me is the problem right now - and I do not think it would be in America's best interest to go with a presidential candidate who has basically said he would do the same thing.

Pinning Somalia on Clinton is like blaming 9/11 on Bush. Goerge H> W> Bush sent troops into Somalia as his last official act in office. He knew it was a bad situation and he sent too few troops. I t was a Bush failure all the way. We left Somalia because we weren't in a position to do anything worth while strategically. It wasn't even supposed to be a military operation. Why didn't Bush Sr. work through the UN? Hmmm... And please show me any quote that says Kerry plans to pull out of Iraq without finishing the job (a quote from Kerry that is, I've only heard that said by the Bush camp trying scare tactics - right up there with those ads LBJ ran about Goldwater and the nukes). I think Kerry would be much better at grasping the entire situation rather than surrounding himself with "Yes Men" who just tell him what he what's to hear.

The thing is - there were MANY times during World War II and World War I and the Civil War and the Revolution that wars weren't going very well. What's different here is that people expect everything to go perfectly - that it would be over and done with in a year and we would have a model democracy in iraq.

And who put that idea into thier heads. "Oh, we'll be welcomed as liberators". Talk about ignorance of history. It wasn't as though it was an impossible task, however. If the administration had listened to the experts regarding the number of troops required to secure Iraq things would be much better there. The reliance on belief in theory rather than time tested principles of war shows a seriously myopic perspective. Rumsfeld's plan of battle was impressive, but it looks like the Redskins former coach Steve Spurrier all air attack, little ground game, and little defense.

Now if the terrorists had NOT moved in - if they would let the rebuilding of Iraq take place - that would be happening. The terrorists aren't attacking Americans anymore - because they have realized we are not getting out. They however ARE attacking the aid workers and the people there to rebuild the country - because they know that as long as they can prevent that from happening they feel they can wear on the American public. That is their goal. Kerry just will give into this.

Their goal is to disrupt Iraqi society so as to generate emnity for the Americans who are supposed to be providing security. You still seem to cling to the idea that the insurgents are made up of only foreigners. Our popularity in Iraq has plummeted since the end of the invasion period. Fairly or not the Iraqis blame us for the chaos on the ground.

As for Kerry "just giving in to this" you as talking out of your shorts. A year ago Howard Dean was about to be crowned the Democratic nominee. Three months ago many pundits were predicting a landslide for Bush. Doesn't sound like a guy who gives up easily to me.

Also - regardless of why you might think reagan lef the democratic party - and there was a MUCH larger difference than just the unions - the democratic party has changed to the flower child party. As for the republicans being right wing - the majority aren't right wing - anymore than the majority of the democratic party is made up of socialists like Kucinich (sp).

So you want to characterize the parties by the extreme elements? Then Republicans are the party of separatist, militia, government hating fascists, of the KKK, the segregationists, fundamentalists that what to force their religion on everyone, burn books, and ban the teaching of evolution. Stupid, huh? So why resort to such transparent labels, false characterizations, and accusations?

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Why when you have verbalized it many times that you don't believe that Iraq will succeed as a democracy and that Afganistan and Iraq will have an influence on the other countries in the region.

Where did I say that. I said it was silly to think that democracy would solve thier problems any time soon. I doubt Uzbekistan will sack their ditatorship becasue the Afghans are having such a great time of it. Democracy depends primarily on a decent economy. Once US funds dry up and real problems persist then the question will be answered. I think most Afgans are enjoying democracy but there are powerful forces that what to retain power.

Then go for it if you so choose. But you're a democrat - so I'm sure after a while you'd be singing some sappy song about how we should all just "get along" and hold hands and meditate. "If we just negotiate and ask the terrorist what they want I'm sure we could stop all the fighting in the world."

Since your a Republican I'm sure you'll find a way to avoid the draft so you can watch my war at home in a comfortable chair. You'll be there complaining that we should have invaded China first, while cradling your Chinese knock-off AK-47 lovingly in your lap, looking for new ways to dodge paying your taxes to fund the war.

LOL!!! This getting like "Team America" with little characture puppets dancing around on the stage. With all the name calling you must be really worried about losing a fair fight.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Pinning Somalia on Clinton is like blaming 9/11 on Bush. Goerge H> W> Bush sent troops into Somalia as his last official act in office. He knew it was a bad situation and he sent too few troops. I t was a Bush failure all the way. We left Somalia because we weren't in a position to do anything worth while strategically. It wasn't even supposed to be a military operation. Why didn't Bush Sr. work through the UN? Hmmm... And please show me any quote that says Kerry plans to pull out of Iraq without finishing the job (a quote from Kerry that is, I've only heard that said by the Bush camp trying scare tactics - right up there with those ads LBJ ran about Goldwater and the nukes). I think Kerry would be much better at grasping the entire situation rather than surrounding himself with "Yes Men" who just tell him what he what's to hear.

That's bull - we were in Somalia as HELPING the UN distribute food. it wasn't until afterward that the war lords took action against this - which caused the military action aspect. Clinton - PULLED OUT of Somalia. Many of the troops have come out in outrage over that and bin Ladin has also pointed it out on many occasions that if you make americans bleed - we run.

And who put that idea into thier heads. "Oh, we'll be welcomed as liberators". Talk about ignorance of history. It wasn't as though it was an impossible task, however. If the administration had listened to the experts regarding the number of troops required to secure Iraq things would be much better there. The reliance on belief in theory rather than time tested principles of war shows a seriously myopic perspective. Rumsfeld's plan of battle was impressive, but it looks like the Redskins former coach Steve Spurrier all air attack, little ground game, and little defense.

You and other democrats seem to forget that we WERE welcomed as liberators. And it migh tbe true that we didn't have enough troops. I think it was wrong to feel that once the battle was one that others would send more troops. It wasn't for lack of trying though.

Their goal is to disrupt Iraqi society so as to generate emnity for the Americans who are supposed to be providing security. You still seem to cling to the idea that the insurgents are made up of only foreigners. Our popularity in Iraq has plummeted since the end of the invasion period. Fairly or not the Iraqis blame us for the chaos on the ground.

I never said that the insurgents aren't made up of iraqis - did I? But the main one is NOT Iraqi. There is far more being influenced from the outside than from the iraqis. You seem to want to ignore that.
[quote]
As for Kerry "just giving in to this" you as talking out of your shorts. A year ago Howard Dean was about to be crowned the Democratic nominee. Three months ago many pundits were predicting a landslide for Bush. Doesn't sound like a guy who gives up easily to me.
[/quote[
An election is much different than a war. It's great - let's put some election commercials on with women crying or false truths about Iraq - like the many Kerry has put on.

So you want to characterize the parties by the extreme elements? Then Republicans are the party of separatist, militia, government hating fascists, of the KKK, the segregationists, fundamentalists that what to force their religion on everyone, burn books, and ban the teaching of evolution. Stupid, huh? So why resort to such transparent labels, false characterizations, and accusations?

I suppose you were too ignorant to read this part that I said....

As for the republicans being right wing - the majority aren't right wing - anymore than the majority of the democratic party is made up of socialists like Kucinich (sp).

So tell me - how did I paint the democrats as an extremist party when I
even said it was WRONG to say that all the democratic party is made up of socialists and people like Kicinich. So explain to me how I was the one who labeled the democratic party in the extreme? All I did was say they have turned into the flower child party - which they have. Sorry - but they are the 60's hippy party. I didn't know that was the extreme elimiment of th party. I actually consider the "communists" and the "socialists" and the black panthers to be the extreme end of the party. But then again - I said saying the democrats were like that would be wrong.

By the way - I'm atheist - and I'm a republican. I support stem cell research, I support abortion in the first trimester, I believe in evolution and I'm against book banning (you might be interested in looking at my peacefire link below). But I believe in people working for what they get, I believe in individual rights, I'm against affirmative action - aka reverse descrimination, I'm for the freedom of parents to choose where they send their children to school (vouchers), and I'm for low taxes.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if the popular vote is so bad, then why not institute electors on a state scale?

The electoral college is out of whack with modern populations. The differences have increased exponentially to the point where individual votes in high population density areas are fractionalized in relation to those of the least populous states.

I think Colorado's plan in an excellent one. It passes constitutional muster, allows states to control the electoral vote, and prevents the national cadidates from completely ignoring any "gimme" state for more time in the "swing" states.

Then there is redistricting.... Both parties are guilt of using this tool to manipulate the outcome of elections by splitting the opposing parties power centers into fragments. Even here in Maryland Connie Morella, a republican I supported for years, was beaten more by the redistricting plan than by her opponent. And don't get me started on Texas.

[jerseydevil]

LOL!!! This getting like "Team America" with little characture puppets dancing around on the stage. With all the name calling you must be really worried about losing a fair fight.

So tell me - who was I name calling - before this last post?

[Cirdan]

JD- I haven't even seen a real "flower-child" in 35 years. And Hippies??? LOL!!! Maybe in a Cheech & Chong movie. Are you still fighting the Vietnam war perhaps?

EDIT: Nice clean-up on the last post, btw.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Then there is redistricting.... Both parties are guilt of using this tool to manipulate the outcome of elections by splitting the opposing parties power centers into fragments. Even here in Maryland Connie Morella, a republican I supported for years, was beaten more by the redistricting plan than by her opponent. And don't get me started on Texas.

Redistricting is a state issue. It depends on how the states set it up. The redistricting board in NJ - is made up of equal number of republicans and democrats.

I disagree with the state splitting votes. It's the states voting. I can't say I want to elect Kerry for these issues and elect Bush for these issues and that's what splitting a state vote does.