PDA

View Full Version : Not starting a political debate


vikingshadow
03-06-2008, 06:13 PM
However, I do NOT understand this whole superdelegate thing the Dems have going.

The candidates are campaigning like crazy, going for votes, yet in the end their votes may not even count because the Super Delegates may decide to vote totally different? Doesn't this go against the whole "Your vote counts" thing this country has used for years to get people to speak out for their government?

Howard Dean mentioned that these super delegates are voted for by the people, but if people don't even understand what they're there for, and there is a spot on a ballot that says who would you vote for, of course they're going to mark something. It's on the ballot so it has to be filled in!

It appears to me that Bar and Hil (and the media) have forsaken the common person in favor of people who are "elected" to vote.

Does this not sound screwy to anyone else? I want my vote to count - otherwise, what's the point? Someone explain this to me, please!

The Pumper
03-06-2008, 06:16 PM
I'm not into politics. Couple weeks back Clinton was all buddy buddy with Obama..then couple days later shes screaming bad stuff about him. Its such a crock of balogna.

DFSniper
03-06-2008, 06:17 PM
yeah, thats always gotten to me too! the media hypes up the public elections (remember bush vs. gore in florida???) but in the end, its only the Electoral College that matters.

The Pumper
03-06-2008, 06:24 PM
I heard this morning as i was pulling into school that like michigan and some other state didnt count because the elections was a day late or somehthing...or was i hearing things?
And Clinton won those states

king-man
03-06-2008, 07:01 PM
yeah, thats always gotten to me too! the media hypes up the public elections (remember bush vs. gore in florida???) but in the end, its only the Electoral College that matters.

If you ask mean Electoral College is abunch of **** anyways, if the popular vote is more than the other than isnt that truly who america voted for?

Critical
03-07-2008, 03:48 AM
Just like everything that politicians do, elections are simply the way that they get who they want, not who the people want, as the nominee. And actually, the democratic nomination is far more interesting than listening to Juan McCain. No matter what happens, the nomination will be decided at their convention, neither can win enough of a lead in state delegates to automatically win the nomination. The republican process makes only slightly more sense, but what I'd really like to see is this:

- Compress the primaries into the last six months of the year, with 2-3 states having their primary each week

- Close primaries so that only those registered with that party may vote in that primary

- Make each state have the same # of delegates, just like our Senators, so that the candidates do not spend all their time in only the states with large #'s of delegates

vikingshadow
03-07-2008, 03:56 AM
I heard this morning as i was pulling into school that like michigan and some other state didnt count because the elections was a day late or somehthing...or was i hearing things?
And Clinton won those states

Michigan and Florida both moved their primaries up, after the DNC told everyone something (not exactly sure, but I know it was because of this) which caused them to lose their super delegates.

So ALL the candidates said they weren't going to campaign in those states since they wouldn't get any delegates (this doesn't make ense to me - people in Florida and Michigan don't count, just the delegates?) But, Hillary campaigned there, saying it wasn't really campaigning. However, her face and her message was given in those states, while the others weren't, so of course, Hillary won those states.

Now she's still saying that those votes should count. Of course she's going to say that - she's the only one that cheated! ;) I bet if she had lost those states, she wouldn't be supporting this.

Anyway, to get away from the debate, I don't think the electoral college is what we're talking about, is it? I thought the electoral college was for both parties, but the super delegates are only for Democrats? This is the one thing that's stumping me about this election. I don't remember hearing one thing about these guys in the last 3-4 elections...

Just like everything that politicians do, elections are simply the way that they get who they want, not who the people want, as the nominee. And actually, the democratic nomination is far more interesting than listening to Juan McCain. No matter what happens, the nomination will be decided at their convention, neither can win enough of a lead in state delegates to automatically win the nomination. The republican process makes only slightly more sense, but what I'd really like to see is this:

- Compress the primaries into the last six months of the year, with 2-3 states having their primary each week

- Close primaries so that only those registered with that party may vote in that primary

- Make each state have the same # of delegates, just like our Senators, so that the candidates do not spend all their time in only the states with large #'s of delegates

Yeah, it's always pissed me off that places like New York, Ohio, New Hampshire and California always seem more important than those of us in Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Kansas - so what if they have more people than us? Majority wins, I always say. You shouldn't be awarded MORE delegates just because you have more people.

DFSniper
03-07-2008, 04:01 AM
I don't remember hearing one thing about these guys in the last 3-4 elections...



ahh, ok. now i understand what you mean. sorry, i've only been around for the last 3-4 elections, and usually try to stay out of politics...

oldironmudder
03-07-2008, 11:28 AM
Wouldnt it be so much easier to have Clinton & Obamas name along with the other folks running on the same voting sheet rather than all this bs either side is usings? That way you could vote for who YOU like better rather than vote for which party.

colonel_moo
03-07-2008, 12:23 PM
If you ask mean Electoral College is abunch of **** anyways, if the popular vote is more than the other than isnt that truly who america voted for?

If we didn't have the electoral college , minorities (and I dont mean necessarily race, but people living in rural areas, low population regions) would have basically no say, and politicians would simply ignore these areas in order to focus on areas that would get them more votes. The electoral college makes the issues of these areas relevant.

irishwarrior
03-07-2008, 12:32 PM
If you ask mean Electoral College is abunch of **** anyways, if the popular vote is more than the other than isnt that truly who america voted for?

Personally, I agree. But, the reason we have the Electoral College is because the Founding Fathers thought the common people too uneducated/ignorant to vote for a competent leader, they likened it to "mob rule". I also agree with some of this. America appears to be becoming very anti-intellectual and more than slightly ignorant. If I had to choose between the person the Electoral College picked and the person everyone in America picked to be president, I would go with the Electoral College.
Just like everything that politicians do, elections are simply the way that they get who they want, not who the people want, as the nominee. And actually, the democratic nomination is far more interesting than listening to Juan McCain. No matter what happens, the nomination will be decided at their convention, neither can win enough of a lead in state delegates to automatically win the nomination. The republican process makes only slightly more sense, but what I'd really like to see is this:

- Compress the primaries into the last six months of the year, with 2-3 states having their primary each week

- Close primaries so that only those registered with that party may vote in that primary

- Make each state have the same # of delegates, just like our Senators, so that the candidates do not spend all their time in only the states with large #'s of delegates

Definitely.

You shouldn't be awarded MORE delegates just because you have more people.

Sounds a lot like when America was trying to get a working constitution and split the votes fairly among the states (New Jersey and Virginia Plans sound familiar?). Perhaps we should create a convention (maybe start a petition?) to try and get all the parties to use a uniform system at least most of the people could agree to.

HelpDeskHustler
03-07-2008, 12:55 PM
Your vote is a 1/Local State Voting Population SWAY to PROBABLY elect the person you want.

interceptorMR2
03-08-2008, 07:07 AM
i've always hated politics, and I always will. Politics are good to a certain extent, but then rules start to get changed. so much for equality of votes. Thats like saying that those superdelegates are better than us, even though all men are created equal... IMO. and like what oldironmudder said, why can't people just vote for who would do the better job as pres for that party instead of voting because its popular or something? Im not really a fan of how things work these days... politics screw too many things up, and the media never helps. IMO!!!!

HelpDeskHustler
03-08-2008, 08:41 AM
The main cause for difficult political decisions is the tactical economic selfishness that occurs in our society because of capitalism. People are mostly going to vote for whoever helps them the most.

vikingshadow
03-08-2008, 08:55 AM
That's exactly right. When I think about who I'd vote for, I first think of who's stances are very similar to mine, or at least who I mostly agree with. Then I reference that to what they can do for me and my family. Then, of course, that translates to what they PLAN on doing for the country, which in turn helps me and my family again.

I'm very selfish, but then again, if you don't take care of yourself and your own, no one will - that is until you qualify for social programs...

But I'm still confused on Super Delegates. Why even bother to vote if the popular vote will be out voted by the Super Delegates? They have no stake in my own family's well being, so how do I know they're doing what's best for me, my family and my country? I think it's a total crock...

durrell
03-08-2008, 09:01 AM
This entire election is a crock.

I'm considered a racist just because I don't agree with Obama's views. The fact that he's black and Muslim and I'm white automatically means that I don't like him because of his ethnicity in the eyes of many Liberal people. The Democrats are playing the race/gender/minority card HARD.

I don't like Obama.
I don't like Hillary at all.
I don't even like John McCain.

Basically we're screwed no matter what in my eyes.

Critical
03-08-2008, 09:41 AM
Lol, it's worse than that Durrell:

- If you don't vote for Obama, you're either a racist scumbag, or you're trying to keep people from growing out of their troubled past.
- If you don't vote for Clinton, you're either a sexist pig or someone who slept with her husband (they have their own PAC, I think).
- If you don't vote for McCain, your either an anti-capitalism communist, a nationalist, or Ron Paul.

Could they give us someone we want to vote for?

VS3 Sniper
03-08-2008, 09:48 AM
This entire election is a crock.

I'm considered a racist just because I don't agree with Obama's views. The fact that he's black and Muslim and I'm white automatically means that I don't like him because of his ethnicity in the eyes of many Liberal people. The Democrats are playing the race/gender/minority card HARD.

I don't like Obama.
I don't like Hillary at all.
I don't even like John McCain.

Basically we're screwed no matter what in my eyes.

Last time I watched the news (it was a few weeks ago) Obama said hes not a muslim. His father was one if I recall correctly.

HelpDeskHustler
03-08-2008, 09:52 AM
I don't like Obama.
I don't like Hillary at all.
I don't even like John McCain.
dot.

Ron Paul was the only good candidate.

Critical
03-08-2008, 09:58 AM
dot.

Ron Paul was the only good candidate.

Lol, Ron Paul is so far out there he makes Ralph Nader look electable.

bigred76
03-08-2008, 10:44 AM
Doc, I have to agree with you. This election is blatant proof that the country and world is about to end, IMHO. Even BUSH is/will soon be was a better President than these imbeciles that think they can run the country.

Hilary? Don't get the big red "Nuke" button around HER when that certain time of the month comes... No other President/Head of State will respect her much anyways.
Obama? No record, I can't say what the hell he'll do!
McCain? Straight up fool.


I wish Nader'd come back, the Tader'd be a far better candidate than the rest of them. :nododgy:

durrell
03-08-2008, 10:51 AM
Last time I watched the news (it was a few weeks ago) Obama said hes not a muslim. His father was one if I recall correctly.

You're right. But his ties to Islam play a major role in some of the unseen areas of his campaign. Google "Muslims for Obama".

The Pumper
03-08-2008, 11:12 AM
This post should probably be in the one anger thread..but here it goes.

I think hillary clinton is the BIGGEST ***** and **** talker in the world. I heard on the news that she said "obama will give the same speech from 2002"
what a dumb *****..like wtf? I dont want that type of person for president. Gosh..i may assassinate her if shes president

just my opinion. sorry for the rant

TheDarkShadow
03-08-2008, 11:17 AM
there really is no good choice, as far as democrats go, well do I need to explain?
and John McCain, if he's president we will be in the war for who knows how long...

HelpDeskHustler
03-08-2008, 12:56 PM
Lol, Ron Paul is so far out there he makes Ralph Nader look electable.

At least Ron Paul got 8% and isn't a nutjob. :rolleyes:

DFSniper
03-08-2008, 01:11 PM
the way ive always seen it, is that its the choice of the lesser of two evils. i've always been a republican because the democrats havent impressed me much (clinton, gore, etc.) and i go off of gut feeling. i cant stand hilary either, and not because she's a woman. i would MUCH rather have obama than hilary. as for his muslim ties go, there was a thing on AOL where they interviewed his grandmother. she said that her children have always been free to pick whatever religion they wanted (she's christian, her husband is muslim), so its not like he's from the hardcore muslim family that everyone (on hilary's end) is making him out to be. john mccain is, eh...john mccain. im not really getting any positive or negative vibes from him. i havent done really any history on any of them, so i cant say who the best person for the job is.

while on the subject:
i was listening to the radio last week and they had cedric the entertainer's nephew on the show, and he gave a little reinactment of a conversation cedric had with him. it went something like this: "people are always coming up to me and talking to me about some bay-rack obama. its like just because i'm black that i know who he is and vote for him. . . this is a guy with a crazy white mother who stuck him in a muslim school as a kid and went by "barry" for the past ten years! that doesnt sound like a black name to me! . . . (goes on about hilary clinton). . . john mccain! now thats a guy that should be president. . . he was locked in a POW camp for 7 years, so you know he's got some ***es to kick!"

HelpDeskHustler
03-08-2008, 04:59 PM
It's really sad that leading this country is referred to by anyone as "kicking some asses"

Critical
03-08-2008, 05:08 PM
What would you prefer?

"Pretty please mister terrorist, please don't bomb us? We promise we'll stop treating minorities equally, women with respect and we'll convert all of our schools to Madrasas."

We need to keep kicking their asses until we run out of asses to kick.

king-man
03-08-2008, 05:09 PM
In the interest of keeping this civil, let's leave the "sharpshooting racist head hunters", womanizing, and anti muslim talk to a minimum here.

Thanks, the Mod Squad

HelpDeskHustler
03-08-2008, 05:14 PM
WOW. that's all I can say. Please edit your post with some logic, If not I'm POSITIVE the mods will after reading blatant stereotypes.

DFSniper
03-08-2008, 05:24 PM
yes, please do. i mean,thats like saying that the democrats are out to kill john mccain...

HelpDeskHustler
03-08-2008, 05:39 PM
Or it's like (and by that I mean is) saying that the majority of Muslims are terrorists.

MR2 Woodsballer
03-08-2008, 06:10 PM
Honestly I am voting for John Mccain. I know for a fact that alot of ppl in the armed forces are planing on leaving if Hillary gets in office and I for one will not join if she does. (Some of you know I am joining the Navy)

battlechaser
03-08-2008, 06:25 PM
I'm not American so I'm not going to drop my 0.02. All I can say is, I want Jean Cretien running Canada again.

No better quality in a 70 year old man than getting angry enough to punch out a protestor amidst a crowd of them... on national television I might add.

interceptorMR2
03-09-2008, 08:06 PM
now theres a kodak moment.

druid
03-09-2008, 08:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

Why we allow this is beyond me. One vote for one individual is the way it should be...

...however...Al Gore would have won...and that's not such a good thing either. He'd have us flapping our arms out of our car windows to give it loft and use less gas.....

interceptorMR2
03-09-2008, 08:44 PM
oh boy, isnt that an inconvienient truth. there are ups and downs to every situation, and im not sure which is worse, al gore, or having our votes count less...

chubb0rz
03-09-2008, 09:00 PM
Politics always depress me. I never know what to believe and if we even have a say in what seems to me is always a "big business" choice. I feel the greed of man kind is poisoning the minds of some of our leaders and top companies. I fear that we may falter if things aren't corrected.

And it doesn't help that I live in a state where no one can seem to vote right :rolleyes:

deano 177
03-10-2008, 03:34 PM
1. Barrak is not muslim. That was internet rumors.
2. Hil did not campaign in florida. She came here to visit her friends.
3. Us dems got screwed by gov. christ. When they decieded to move the polls up they knew that the republicans were going to allow half of the delagates to be seated and none of the demacrats. I know I got out there and cast my vote. You think it's wrong that Hill is calling for the votes? Lets see when your party scilences you how you feel. Every vote counts? Well I guess not. And as far a Michigan goes... if Barrak was stupid enough not to put his name on the ballot, then he deserves no deligates... I guess you know who I voted for...:)

Honestly I am voting for John Mccain. I know for a fact that alot of ppl in the armed forces are planing on leaving if Hillary gets in office and I for one will not join if she does. (Some of you know I am joining the Navy) I'm just glad that you are getting out there and voting.