Presidential Erec.. I mean Elections.

[Anonymous]

That, whether you see it or not, was a flame, and not worthy of mentioning, as it is extremely prejudiced, eh?

[Anonymous]

IMO, the reason most countries dislike America is because Bush pissed em all off by going into war w/ Iraq and such.  I'm pretty sure when Clinton was around we were pretty well liked.  Correct me if i'm wrong.  My personal explanation of the war - avenging his daddy, Bush senior.  BTW, what the HELL ever happened to Osama?  Did we just ditch the guy that killed a couple thousand of our people?  Then go after a dictator who did nothing to us? (I suppose its possible he could have, but Osama at the time was more important.)
/rant

[Anonymous]

Oh no. I don't like Canadians that much.

And the only reason I do tend to pick on Canadians is that A) I can walk there and poke them and B) they are, in general, the only people I can make fun of that don't freak out. If I make fun of say, my fellow Americans, they tend to shoot at me. With large caliber automatic weapons. And since I would rather have a bunch of peaceful people whose principles I generally agree with pissed at me than an inherently violent culture that makes the average Cro-Magnon look like the acme of human intelligence and achievement... I'm going to have to keep poking the Canadians. Sorry.

ps. Anyone that currently has any large caliber automatic weapons pointed at me... Err... The above was a joke! Honest.

[Anonymous]

Hmm....if your asking what happened to Osama, you dont deserve to be talking about politics at this point.

And very nice Gillette. I actually went up there and poked em once.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand, Iluvatar.  As far as I know, Bush never wen't after the man responsible for killing a couple thousand people.  I guess he did do some bombing over in Afganistan, but I never heard of them finding him and/or killing him.

[Anonymous]

Gillette, no one is expecting this DISCUSSION to make a difference.  You've flipped the conversation around thinking that the other stance to the argument is whining.  It's a typical reaction of people who blindly follow the way it's always been done, and are afraid of change.  When I say it's not fair, that isn't some sort of immature complaint, shouldn't the election for the president of the united states be fair and unbiased???  If anything should be fair in life, this should be it.  Just because this is how it's done doesn't make it right, logical, or useful.

[Anonymous]

Please keep the issues out of this.  The thread will EXPLODE with arguments if we bring up the war.  Let's stick to the EC and the election results as they stand

[Anonymous]

You just said that what happened to Osama?

1.) We have been looking for him. Unfortunately, the media controls the country, and public interest waned, thus, the Government (and by proxy media) began to release less and less on it. Just because it isnt said does not mean it is not happening.

2.) Osama released a tape. Which answers the question "What happened to Osama Bin Laden.

I still love you. Have you got that burner working?

P.S: For actual discussion, or at least more civilized, teamspeak is a wonderul tool. You can actually talk without worry of the topic becoming dead!!!! AMAZING!

[Anonymous]

It is fair and unbiased. Those of us who think it should change don't have enough support from the rest of the country to change it. The majority has spoken. If you aren't actively campaigning to change the way things are, you're just complaining. If you are actively trying to change things, then you would already understand the issues and the size of the obstacle that we face (in terms of the majority of american voters)... ergo, you wouldn't be saying that it's not fair.

Unless you think your opinion outweighs the majority of americans, in which case, you might have a point.

[Anonymous]

..Ever notice that nearly no one gave a shit about the electoral college until the last election?  
Not saying no one did, but there wasn't nearly as many people supported getting rid of it until 4 years ago...
BTW, I just got back from the ballots and don't think Nader was on the ballot in WI..any other wisconsinites here that noticed that? o_O

[Anonymous]

I think people who didn't really understand the EC figured out what it is capable of last presidential election, and so now that they're educated by example, they realize what a bad system it is.  I for one have despised it since middle school when we were taught what it was.

In Ohio Nader was on the ballot, but it was overturned by the courts for some discrepancy in the petition signatures he got, so all the booths have notices that votes for Nader won't be counted

[Anonymous]

My vote goes to John Kerry, eh?

[Broin]

Folks you know I got nothing but love for you all...     Core your the man and I've got no problem with yah.  In truth you remind me of my best friend... We are total opposites on the concepts of captalism and other such things, but hey that's cool.  It' s late and I didn't read all the posts yet.  But you know what guys when it gets down to it for us (MXO Furious Angels) none of it matters and as long as we all get in game and kick some serious ass...   Well then it's all good as far as I can see.  Soon it will be time and I have a feeling we will be rockin' and rollin' over everyone

[Ketamininja]

^^ Exactly

We aint nothing but voters (and hey, some aint even that - including me). Its all just talking.

On the EC -
The EC tries to make things fair for all states, but does it really? The states get 2 EC votes automatically (senators), then a number of other EC votes for congressmen (this is based on population). Therefore, winning bigger states is better than winning smaller ones. Naturally this would be true if it were individual votes used too (larger population means more votes). The different states build a political map, and this makes it appear like states are being won rather than population.

But what I am concerned about is the fact well, Bush would not have got in (2000) if it were down to individual votes, even though it seems like it should have the same effect. Gore can have more voters but still lose! That seems a little strange

[Anonymous]

In the 92, 96 and 00 elections, the person who lost the popular vote won the election. Methinks that the electoral college has been on peeps minds for longer than 4 years. The controversy in 00 really didn't have all that much to do with the EC. It had a lot more to do with the Supreme Court. And the Florida Gov and AG. The EC got spun up a bit by the docs to detract from the publicity related to all the familial ties.

Anyway. I own land in Canada. I think I'm moving. Maybe I'll just speak French with a Texas accent to keep the locals on their toes.