| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2008 03:53:14 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by tsooozavel:
Right now, they are just starting to set the tone of their campaign. This early, i really can't tell which i would side with, but i am leaning towards obama. Furthermore, the GOP base is not even warming up to mccain (of course, i could be wrong) and even though it's still early in the game, this just proves to show how we see our candidates to-date. i know i will get burned for this, but i think mccain is a warmonger. i get the impression that he doesn't care to what happens to our troops in the middle east and the other parts of the world. Can’t we just all get along? i think it is time for a purification; i think it is time for a change; i think it is time for obama time. Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. Looking at their most recent speeches in //pollclash.com , what do you think about what you hear? |
Join Date June 16, 2008
Comments:
Made: 0
Helpful: 0
Received: 0
Helpful: 0
Forums:
Posts: 1
Threads Created: 0
Profile Views: 6
Total Images Viewed: 0
So... how much does Obama pay you for doing this? Cuz, really you're doing it all wrong. You need to slip in undetected, blend in, chat about photography a bit, throw a snapshot into a challenge and then post about how exciting it was even though you finished in the lower 20% and then ease into the political threads. And don't post any links the first time. Wait til people think you're legit. AND - first say that you are leaning more towards McCain, then change your mind through the course of the thread. THAT would be much more convincing. Good luck to you. |
|
|
|
06/16/2008 03:05:56 AM · #2 |
Right now, they are just starting to set the tone of their campaign. This early, i really can't tell which i would side with, but i am leaning towards obama. Furthermore, the GOP base is not even warming up to mccain (of course, i could be wrong) and even though it's still early in the game, this just proves to show how we see our candidates to-date. i know i will get burned for this, but i think mccain is a warmonger. i get the impression that he doesn't care to what happens to our troops in the middle east and the other parts of the world. Can’t we just all get along? i think it is time for a purification; i think it is time for a change; i think it is time for obama time. Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. Looking at their most recent speeches in //pollclash.com , what do you think about what you hear?
|
|
|
|
01/08/2008 03:00:11 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm sure you're kidding, but I'll play straight man here... |
Mostly kidding. I'm all for shaking things up, but I'm very clear that it'd never work. It would end up being jerry-rigged just like local districts do today.
Maybe one day I'll shake things up and become an Aussie or Kiwi... ;) |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 02:43:38 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Luckily we don't redraw state lines, like we do district lines within a state... |
Hmmmmm... I like that idea. Every 20 years, redraw state lines based on population... |
I'm sure you're kidding, but I'll play straight man here... We supposedly live in a republic comprised of 50 individual states. Supposedly the federal government is subordinate to the states' interests. Supposedly very rural states have just as much right to representation as the more populous ones. The question is, what kind of a system can we put in place that reserves some sort of power to the more rural states with their populations, so their rightful voices may be heard at a national level? The electoral college is the best answer anyone's yet come up with IMO. It has flaws, but we have over 200 years of electoral college in this country and there hasn't been much to complain about yet, as far as the college is concerned.
A straight popular vote would come back and bite us on the a$$ big-time, as the ethnic sub-populations grow more and more powerful. Already the Hispanics are driving to a quasi-majority status, population-wise, in this country. We need SOME sort of institutionalized means to keep people looking at the big picture, not the local picture. States = local picture, Feds = big picture.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2008 02:12:54 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Luckily we don't redraw state lines, like we do district lines within a state... |
Hmmmmm... I like that idea. Every 20 years, redraw state lines based on population... |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 01:09:15 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In a nutshell, the purpose of the Electoral College is to ensure that a single, very populous region cannot dominate the election, that every region is fairly represented. The Electoral College essentially forces coalition-building where straight popular vote would encourage the politics of extremism. And it has been said that the true art of democracy is the art of coalition-building. Those who say that democracy means "majority rules" don't know what they are talking about. In a properly functioning democracy you create majorities by forging coalitions.
For an overview of Electoral college pros and cons, go here.
R. |
Ah, but the trick question is do you think that the electoral college is divided small or large enough that a very populous region cannot dominate? Is 50 states small or too large, because it is very rare for an Elector to split off from the rest of the Electors in the state.
Plus the fact that the electoral college really gives a lot of power to the lobbyists. Is that a good thing, depends on who is lobbying.
There are issues with every system of course. While I think the electoral college is fine, it does have drawbacks (chiefly the lobbyists in my opinion).
Luckily we don't redraw state lines, like we do district lines within a state...
Sometimes I just like playing Devil's Advocate. :)
Message edited by author 2008-01-08 13:16:44. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 12:43:59 PM · #7 |
In a nutshell, the purpose of the Electoral College is to ensure that a single, very populous region cannot dominate the election, that every region is fairly represented. The Electoral College essentially forces coalition-building where straight popular vote would encourage the politics of extremism. And it has been said that the true art of democracy is the art of coalition-building. Those who say that democracy means "majority rules" don't know what they are talking about. In a properly functioning democracy you create majorities by forging coalitions.
For an overview of Electoral college pros and cons, go here.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2008 12:21:41 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
Slightly off topic but as were talking ID - There is a local election taking place in the Town where I live this Thursday - I have no photo ID (except my passport) but I dont need one - all I have to do is take my ballot card with me, even then that is not necessary, If I forgot it I just have to tell the officials my name and address. |
In Philadelphia it's similar, but they have a book with every registered voter in the ward which you have to sign. It has a scanned copy of the voters signature in it and they have to match. I don't know how it works down here in Florida, yet. Guess I'll be finding out soon enough. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 12:14:55 PM · #9 |
Slightly off topic but as were talking ID - There is a local election taking place in the Town where I live this Thursday - I have no photo ID (except my passport) but I dont need one - all I have to do is take my ballot card with me, even then that is not necessary, If I forgot it I just have to tell the officials my name and address.
Message edited by author 2008-01-08 12:15:43. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 11:57:52 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by icu1965:
When I registered to vote on my 18th birthday they gave me a free voter registration card, I can either use that or my license as my id when I go to vote. |
Is it a photo ID card? If not and it's stolen what prevents someone from stealing it and pretending to be you? |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 11:50:08 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by SDW:
Why is it that so many are against requiring a voter show ID in the general election when they cast their vote. I don't see where it's discrimination. |
Another problem is charging people for the ID. That amounts to a poll tax, which is a bad idea. You think people don't vote enough now? Start charging them (again) to vote. |
That's easy. 1) Required ID should be available for FREE, 2) Offset this expense to the state by increasing the income tax by $2.50 PER YEAR per person. Four years, Ten Dollars. Covers the cost of a State ID.
It's can no longer be considered a poll tax. :) |
When I registered to vote on my 18th birthday they gave me a free voter registration card, I can either use that or my license as my id when I go to vote. |
|
|
|
01/08/2008 11:44:23 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by SDW:
Why is it that so many are against requiring a voter show ID in the general election when they cast their vote. I don't see where it's discrimination. |
Another problem is charging people for the ID. That amounts to a poll tax, which is a bad idea. You think people don't vote enough now? Start charging them (again) to vote. |
That's easy. 1) Required ID should be available for FREE, 2) Offset this expense to the state by increasing the income tax by $2.50 PER YEAR per person. Four years, Ten Dollars. Covers the cost of a State ID.
It's can no longer be considered a poll tax. :) |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 11:23:04 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jaysonmc:
If people do not take enough interests in politics why would you want them to vote.
|
You do make a valid point, however I don't always think of it as politics. When it comes to an election the candidates are putting out so much information that it's hard not to know what they stand for (whether it's BS or not). I know one year I was really unsure of who to vote for and I asked co-workers and family members and I went with the majority of their vote. I guess what I'm saying is, you don't have to bleed politics to be able to make a good judgment about who to vote for. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 11:18:05 PM · #14 |
never mind
Message edited by author 2008-01-07 23:18:20.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 11:09:42 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by SDW:
OP'er - Good question and thanks to all that has explained very well to the best of my knowledge. If the OP'er don't mind I would like to ask a question that has bugged me for many presidential elections and has come to controversy in the last several years. That's Identification.
Why is it that so many are against requiring a voter show ID in the general election when they cast their vote. I don't see where it's discrimination. You have to have a valid picture ID such as drivers license to drive, or State or Federal ID to purchase such things as tobacco, liquor and beer. Its also required to get into establishments that has age requirements. We have to show ID to apply for credit and a job. What is the big deal?
This is an honest question, not a rant question. |
I have to show an ID everytime I vote in the great state of Connecticut.My driver's licence is sufficient
Message edited by author 2008-01-07 23:10:51. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 11:06:43 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I've seen people who I suspect were illegally in the country voting in elections in my area. |
Out of curiosity, what made you suspect these people were illegal? |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 11:04:35 PM · #17 |
Summary of the arguments against voter ID.
I'm sure similar pages exist that discuss the reasons for it, but since the pro argument seems obvious to me, I didn't bother finding any. I hadn't thought of the arguments against on my own.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 10:58:02 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by icu1965:
What bugs me more, we have people that complain about our presidents (past, present and future) that aren't even registered to vote. I think the system is definitely flawed, but whose isn't? |
Awwww, this gets me too! Sometimes, especially at the national level, the choices presented to me are unappealing. So unfortunately, I consider my vote a license to complain. :) But the blood of too many brave people have been spilled for my right to vote, for me to abandon it. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 10:57:29 PM · #19 |
If people do not take enough interests in politics why would you want them to vote.
Also, I am a firm believer in the right to vote, not the forced obligation to vote.
As and avid voter, at least that is how I feel. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 10:57:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Why is it that so many are against requiring a voter show ID in the general election when they cast their vote. I don't see where it's discrimination. |
On the face of it, it seems to make sense to me, too. But then I read this about Georgia (the US state, not the independent country) in a Barack Obama news release (so some of this may be exaggerated):
"Currently, there are 150,000 Georgians over 70 who do not have government-issued photo identification, and 1 in 8 Americans do not have a driver's license. This group is disproportionately poor and often do not have easy access to all the documents necessary to get a government-issued ID. Georgia has only 56 locations in 159 counties where people can get this photo identification, and Atlanta, one of America's largest cities, is not one of them."
So poor people would have difficulty proving who they were, even if some of the specific claims aren't true, and it costs money to get the documents.
Another problem is charging people for the ID. That amounts to a poll tax, which is a bad idea. You think people don't vote enough now? Start charging them (again) to vote.
Message edited by author 2008-01-07 23:17:35.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 10:54:25 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Tajhad:
Now to throw the wolf among the lambs.
Should voting be compulsory ? |
\
I personally believe it should be. At least to utilize government aid programs one should vote. Especially in local elections. These are generally much more important than the national elections. Maybe we should ask one of our Brazilian members. If I remember correctly voting is considered a compulsory obligation there. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 10:47:44 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Why is it that so many are against requiring a voter show ID in the general election when they cast their vote. I don't see where it's discrimination. |
I've seen people who I suspect were illegally in the country voting in elections in my area. If people were carded this wouldn't happen. I don't think it happens a lot as registering to vote requires some check for citizenship. But a "motor voter" initiative had the affect of blurring these lines. The local democratic party seems to think illegals will vote democratic. I'm not so sure. Many of the illegals I've seen are pretty savvy business people. They tend to drift toward being republican. So I suspect the two cancel each other out. That's why it doesn't concern me much. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 10:44:44 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
About 6 years ago, the US Rep from our district in Connecticut was elected based on a vote difference of 6 votes out of more than 100,000 votes cast. A similar example happened last year in a western state.
I can't understand why people continue to say their votes don't count. They sure do! Voting cannot be compulsory, but it IS the duty of every citizen to vote. We as citizens have the right and the duty to vote, but making it a requirement crosses the line to undesirable territory.
|
Every vote counts I agree, but is every vote truly equal?
I remember something with Florida a few years back... |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 10:09:21 PM · #24 |
About 6 years ago, the US Rep from our district in Connecticut was elected based on a vote difference of 6 votes out of more than 100,000 votes cast. A similar example happened last year in a western state.
I can't understand why people continue to say their votes don't count. They sure do! Voting cannot be compulsory, but it IS the duty of every citizen to vote. We as citizens have the right and the duty to vote, but making it a requirement crosses the line to undesirable territory.
Originally posted by icu1965:
Originally posted by Tajhad:
Now to throw the wolf among the lambs.
Should voting be compulsory ? Can you have a true democracy if not everybody votes ? Does it just mean that every uniformed idiot just gets a say or does it mean you have a least a leader (or government) that everybody has had a say in (regardless of how illinformed)?
I believe that when Reagan was first elected it was done on only about 35% of the country voting. Does this mean that 65% didn't want him or just didn't care ?
Just on the aspect of the elected leader - in Australia they generally sit in a seat that is considered "safe" for their party - therfore can be guaranteed to be the leader of the party (if they are presently so) and the future Prime Minister. We just had an election here and the old PM actually lost his seat (they lost the election - so it didn't really matter) but would have produced a sticky situation if they had won the election (won the election but the PM actually losing his seat). |
My thoughts on that are, people aren't excercising their right to vote. A lot of people think their vote won't count because of the way the system is set up, so they don't vote. I often wonder if those people got out and voted, how the elections would turn out? What bugs me more, we have people that complain about our presidents (past, present and future) that aren't even registered to vote. I think the system is definitely flawed, but whose isn't? |
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 10:03:28 PM · #25 |
I agree wholeheartldy. If everyone votes - you can't really complain about your Government (or at least you can remove them at the next election). Although a lot of people see it as their democratic right not to vote - I think the compulsory voting has certain safe guards. What about democratic societies where people are afraid to vote ? If everbody had to vote then certain governments who are not really supporting their people would not find themselves in power.
On a lighter note - we had a referendem a few years back over whether Australia should become a Republic (President as head of state - only a figure head (like the Indian system - not the US). At the moment the Queen (of England - not Barry Humphries) is our figure head of state. Believe it or not the motion was rejected (by the majority of the people)! In the meantime a Tasmanian girl married into the Danish royal family - the media (and the public) love her. "Our Princess Mary". They can't do anything without it making the papers here and in Denmark. I often make jokes to people about this "young upstart" - she's not our royal family - Charles and Carmilia are (after all we all voted for them - what did Mary do - just married some guy she met in a bar).
Imagery that most don't like. LOL
|
|
