Hey Political People...

sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Not all states are winner take all, there are two that aren't: Nebraska and a state in New England (Vermont or New Hampshire I think). Now, Nebraska is tiny population wise so there are only 5 electoral votes which is basically just a drop in the bucket....but they are predicting that the 4 that would represent about 95% of the land mass will vote republican as usual, and Omaha has 1 electoral vote and has the largest population concentration in the state will vote democrat.
While still part of the system that I think should be abolished, this at least gives a little more purpose to the popular vote...
 
mimzy

mimzy

Active Member
how about..... you know.....
......maybe......
.....having more than two parties.
::ducks and covers::
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2601077
Even if they would just get rid of the winner takes all rules the lectorial College wouldn't be nearly as bad. At least New York and California would get to see the Republican and the south would see the Democrat.
If the Electoral Candidate is responsible for keeping Senator Obama out of Texas I say build an alter to it and celebrate it; Don't condemn it.

The parties more and more represent opposite mindsets. That's why it is becoming easier to support 1 party or the other.
 
rotarymagic

rotarymagic

Active Member
I think that cigarette pic of Obama just makes him look like a sloppy, filthy drunk... Had he had longer hair to mess up, he'd be in the running against Nick Nolte's mugshot for FILTHINESS!!!
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
It's getting harder for me. I can't vote for Chuck Baldwin for fear of helping Obama become president.
Third parties need people to start voting 3rd party to take some power from the egotists that make up the two major parties.
http://www.baldwin08.com/
Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rotarymagic
http:///forum/post/2805737
Ron Paul pwns...
Why won't Ron Paul just do a last minute third party? He has ALOT of support in Texas.
That's why he simply cannot win. Too many people will not vote for another Texan regardless of party. I was behind him until his remarks on withdrawl from Iraq.
 
rotarymagic

rotarymagic

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2805767
That's why he simply cannot win. Too many people will not vote for another Texan regardless of party. I was behind him until his remarks on withdrawl from Iraq.
Yeah.. oh well, you never can have it all...To be honest, as long as the bin Ladens are closely tied to the Bush's, Osama will never be caught IMO. I hate to start sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but I'm starting to agree partially with the zeitgeist stuff..However, I don't think their solution is anything close to believable though in the second one. I don't like the Federal Banking System (especially the fractional reserve policy) and I think its a joke when people really think that debt from it can actually be paid back. Alot of the ex-CIA guys are really coming out about the involvement with other countries trying to "buy" them out. No country or government is ever free of corruption to a degree.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rotarymagic
http:///forum/post/2805772
Yeah.. oh well, you never can have it all...To be honest, as long as the bin Ladens are closely tied to the Bush's, Osama will never be caught IMO. I hate to start sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but I'm starting to agree partially with the zeitgeist stuff..However, I don't think their solution is anything close to believable though in the second one. I don't like the Federal Banking System (especially the fractional reserve policy) and I think its a joke when people really think that debt from it can actually be paid back. Alot of the ex-CIA guys are really coming out about the involvement with other countries trying to "buy" them out. No country or government is ever free of corruption to a degree.
I remember the old days when either gold or silver backed the dollar.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
From the farewell address:
"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
On federal credit:
"...cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt....it is essential that you...bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not...inconvenient and unpleasant..."
Washington 08!
 
rotarymagic

rotarymagic

Active Member
Originally Posted by lovethesea
http:///forum/post/2805978

Why didn't Clinton take him when he had him.

Clinton was a wussy, see our Somalia disaster? What about poor no fly zone enforcement in Iraq? Indecisiveness in the Balkans?
I'm not really a Bush hater, I'm just stating the obvious.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Even though the sound of it
Is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough
You'll always sound precocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Because I was afraid to speak
When I was just a lad
My father gave me nose a tweak
And told me I was bad
But then one day I learned a word
That saved me aching nose
The biggest word I ever heard
And this is how it goes:
Oh, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Even though the sound of it
Is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough
You'll always sound precocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
So when the cat has got your tongue
There's no need for dismay
Just summon up this word
And then you've got a lot to say
But better use it carefully
Or it may change your life
One night I said it to me girl
And now me girl's my wife!
She's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
http:///forum/post/2600599
I am not trying to "stir the chili" or come off like a *language!!!!* .. but here it goes...
I often wonder why people support one party or another and hold fast, but sometimes support a view of the other... and within that wonder why people support the person their party "chooses"... because often times they arent the best candidate(s) nor do they hold true to "your" views...
I also wonder why you cast a vote knowing that your vote can mean nothing (popular vote) because of your states electoral votes...
in theory shouldnt you be pounding the doors of your states Electoral Voters???
why not have more than just 1 person be the representative of your party???

To answer your original question. As I'm sure you have me in mind
.
I do vote my belief structure. On the state and local levels I'll vote for the third party (in texas it typically is libertarian) if they do have a legitimate chance to win and I like the guy. I also think that there will never be a major 3rd party. The two parties have spend the last 200 years making sure of that. So I think the most effective way to get what I ideally would like would be to change the party not get a 3rd party. So for the most part I do vote republican. Although they are getting more and more like liberals lately, they still are the best choice in fitting with my social, and fiscal views when compared to democrats. Who are just a bunch of closet commies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top