Where Mayors become VP

[Lee]

Don't forget to add to your Palin list "Suing the Bush administration over placing polar bears on the endangered species list"

[damigu]

Originally Posted by Jongpil Yun

Propaganda? Look it up. That's a summary of their education and political careers. If you think something as straight forward as that is anti-Palin propaganda, then that says something.

Simple. Obama has the balls to come out and say that he used to smoke weed without hiding behind some "I didn't inhale" or "I didn't like it" bullshit.

yes, propaganda. i will repeat: what you provided is *A* set of facts, but not *ALL* facts relevant to the matter. i got an email at work that also was all straight forward facts, but the picture it painted made palin look better.
so either what you stated *IS* propaganda spin by statement of selective facts, or else the universe is about to implode because 2 separate chain emails exist that both state facts that lead to contradictory conclusions!

as for not liking marijuana, i've tried it on multiple occasions and i don't like it either. not everyone likes getting stoned. so she might be just being honest.

[NegaTiveXero]

Palin wasn't the governor of Alaska since 2002. She was lieutenant governor in 2002.

[HotRodded7321]

Originally Posted by Brendan G

Well the fact that McCain criticized Obama for being inexperienced then picked someone who was inexperienced herself to become vice president is hypocritical.

Uh...if she's running for VP, and is qualified enoughfor the position, then what's the issue?

I think the fact that Obama can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?

I don't see how the whole "experience" card can even be played to judge one over the other. What, is Biden just going to be Obama's "on the job trainer"? And THAT'S ok? Yeah, worked GREAT for the Bush administration, right!? Let's have everyone else influence him to do what THEY want, then things will get better, right? Oh, wait...no...we'll be MORE ....ed than we are now.

I think there are alot more important things to consider on either side, like what they've SAID and what they're SAYING. Who gives a shit if she was the governor of a small town or a major city? Isn't what her vision and goals for office are more important? It's a stupid, STUPID argument, in my opinion.

I for one will not be voting for either of these idiots and their little pets. And if Obama DOES win, I hope he's too stupid to get ANYTHING done while he's in office, then maybe he won't .... anything ELSE up when he takes over this piece of shit government.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by HotRodded7321

Uh...if she's running for VP, and is qualified enoughfor the position, then what's the issue?

I think the fact that Obama can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?

Since there are no requirements, that's why there's the debate. It's the second highest office in the land, and someone that doesn't have a lot of experience can easily be brought under scrutiny for such.

What's sad about your second point is that he's written most of his greatest speeches himself (Eg: his speech on race, his acceptance speech are two that come to mind), and speaking of teleprompters, tell Sarah Palin to go work on her new-clear portfolio.

[Brendan G]

Originally Posted by HotRodded7321

Uh...if she's running for VP, and is qualified enoughfor the position, then what's the issue?

I think the fact that Obama can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?

I don't see how the whole "experience" card can even be played to judge one over the other. What, is Biden just going to be Obama's "on the job trainer"? And THAT'S ok? Yeah, worked GREAT for the Bush administration, right!? Let's have everyone else influence him to do what THEY want, then things will get better, right? Oh, wait...no...we'll be MORE ....ed than we are now.

I think there are alot more important things to consider on either side, like what they've SAID and what they're SAYING. Who gives a shit if she was the governor of a small town or a major city? Isn't what her vision and goals for office are more important? It's a stupid, STUPID argument, in my opinion.

I for one will not be voting for either of these idiots and their little pets. And if Obama DOES win, I hope he's too stupid to get ANYTHING done while he's in office, then maybe he won't .... anything ELSE up when he takes over this piece of shit government.

There are many problems with both candidates, let's just leave it at that.

[HotRodded7321]

WTF ever. I could WRITE great speeches too if I had time and a good thesaurus, but actually TALKING to people is a different story. Which, he CAN'T do, as proven several times, without having it all drawn up for him.

Obama is a tool, and McCain is an even bigger tool, I can't WAIT for this next term to be over...maybe someone will step up that's worth a shit.

[damigu]

Originally Posted by Brendan G

There are many problems with both candidates, let's just leave it at that.

but at the same time, the available options now are still better than what we had 4 and 8 years ago.

[Jongpil Yun]

Originally Posted by damigu

yes, propaganda. i will repeat: what you provided is *A* set of facts, but not *ALL* facts relevant to the matter. i got an email at work that also was all straight forward facts, but the picture it painted made palin look better.
so either what you stated *IS* propaganda spin by statement of selective facts, or else the universe is about to implode because 2 separate chain emails exist that both state facts that lead to contradictory conclusions!

as for not liking marijuana, i've tried it on multiple occasions and i don't like it either. not everyone likes getting stoned. so she might be just being honest.

No, that is her entire political career. And I left out Obama working for a law firm while serving as Prof. at Columbia. Except I've apparently overestimated Palin's career, because:

Palin wasn't the governor of Alaska since 2002. She was lieutenant governor in 2002.

is almost right. She made an unsuccessful bid for Lt. Governor (came in 2nd). She became Governor in 2006.

If that is not a near complete summary of her qualifications, then what, pray tell, would you include? She served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for less than a year. She was a director of the Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc. 527 group for two years. That is literally everything.

[Josh Lawson]

Originally Posted by Jongpil Yun

No, that is her entire political career. And I left out Obama working for a law firm while serving as Prof. at Columbia. Except I've apparently overestimated Palin's career, because:



is almost right. She made an unsuccessful bid for Lt. Governor (came in 2nd). She became Governor in 2006.

If that is not a near complete summary of her qualifications, then what, pray tell, would you include? She served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for less than a year. She was a director of the Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc. 527 group for two years. That is literally everything.

Ted Stevens is a proven lying thieving pile of shit. That is why Palin is not really listing this on her resume of exalted deeds.

[Jongpil Yun]

Originally Posted by HotRodded7321

Uh...if she's running for VP, and is qualified enoughfor the position, then what's the issue?

McCain dies or is otherwise incapacitated, she's your president.

I don't see how the whole "experience" card can even be played to judge one over the other. What, is Biden just going to be Obama's "on the job trainer"? And THAT'S ok? Yeah, worked GREAT for the Bush administration, right!? Let's have everyone else influence him to do what THEY want, then things will get better, right? Oh, wait...no...we'll be MORE ....ed than we are now.

Oh. Well I should currently be a tenured professor, right? Because experience doesn't matter.

I think there are alot more important things to consider on either side, like what they've SAID and what they're SAYING. Who gives a shit if she was the governor of a small town or a major city? Isn't what her vision and goals for office are more important? It's a stupid, STUPID argument, in my opinion.

1) Mayor.
2) Carter said a lot of things. How much did he get done?
3) Palin is basically unknown. She has not spent the last 18 months laying out to the nation what she will do.

I for one will not be voting for either of these idiots and their little pets. And if Obama DOES win, I hope he's too stupid to get ANYTHING done while he's in office, then maybe he won't .... anything ELSE up when he takes over this piece of shit government.

Go ahead. Makes everyone else's vote count more.

WTF ever. I could WRITE great speeches too if I had time and a good thesaurus, but actually TALKING to people is a different story. Which, he CAN'T do, as proven several times, without having it all drawn up for him.

Hubris, much? Why exactly aren't you a top political speech writer? And where exactly has Obama shown an inability to talk to people?

Obama is a tool, and McCain is an even bigger tool, I can't WAIT for this next term to be over...maybe someone will step up that's worth a shit.

Right, because screw policy, "he's a tool" says everything.

[Scali]

You guys have no idea how silly this all looks to a foreigner

Aside from that, the Dutch political system is completely different, I have a hard time to take that Democrat/Republican stuff seriously, because to me it feels like there's so little substance to the agendas of either party, and it's all focused on superficial things (great move getting a former beauty queen running for Vice President, the cuteness-factor will get a lot of votes!).

[ZeroSignal]

Originally Posted by Scali

You guys have no idea how silly this all looks to a foreigner

Aside from that, the Dutch political system is completely different, I have a hard time to take that Democrat/Republican stuff seriously, because to me it feels like there's so little substance to the agendas of either party, and it's all focused on superficial things (great move getting a former beauty queen running for Vice President, the cuteness-factor will get a lot of votes!).

Yeah, same here. As if a dual party system could possibly be fair.

[Papa Shank]

Originally Posted by ZeroSignal

Yeah, same here. As if a dual party system could possibly be fair.

Thankfully that's not the case in Scotland, still think the UK as a whole is either Labour or Tory...

But back on issue with this Palin vs Obama lark. Personally, and I'm not going to explain myself, but from what I've seen people would be very foolish to vote McCain and Palin. Obama appears to be a more rounded candidate, I'd also suggest that perhaps he has more of the right kind of experiences and attitude which McCain or Palin lack.

Besides that, McCain is god awful at giving speeches and I wouldn't trust Palin to do the right thing rather than simply what she wants to do.

[Scali]

Originally Posted by ZeroSignal

Yeah, same here. As if a dual party system could possibly be fair.

Yea, over here I'd pick the party that best represents what I believe in.
Over there you'd have to pick the lesser of the two evils, because chances are that neither really represents what you believe in (other than the fact that they are both right-wing basically. I suppose one is just even more right-wing than the other. The rest are commies and must die ).
I probably just wouldn't vote at all, so this entire campaign-business is just wasted on me.

[damigu]

Originally Posted by ZeroSignal

Yeah, same here. As if a dual party system could possibly be fair.

america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!

75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.

when ross perot ran as an independent a few elections ago, he got about 9% of the vote (again, with only a 25% turnout of the eligible voting population), and that's very significant.

[Matt Crooks]

Originally Posted by damigu

america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!

75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.

when ross perot ran as an independent a few elections ago, he got about 9% of the vote (again, with only a 25% turnout of the eligible voting population), and that's very significant.

Sources for your numbers please.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by noodles

She was head of the PTA?

which is exactly how she comes across in her speeches lol

[Toshiro]

Originally Posted by damigu

america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!

75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.

when ross perot ran as an independent a few elections ago, he got about 9% of the vote (again, with only a 25% turnout of the eligible voting population), and that's very significant.

Electoral College (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Popular vote does not win the election. It would take something pretty serious for a 3rd party to win in the US presidential race.

[damigu]

Originally Posted by Matt Crooks

Sources for your numbers please.

good point, thank you. i was going by numbers of the whole population but neglected that many are children below the eligible age.

all the same, most elections don't even have a 50% turnout among eligible voters. the last election had a higher turnout due to the extreme division in the country. this one might, too. but there's still enough people *NOT* voting that they could potentially elect someone entirely different.

(vote counts are easily accessible public info--i shouldn't have to give sources on something you see with your own eyes every 4 years as election results come in)

Originally Posted by Toshiro

Electoral College (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Popular vote does not win the election. It would take something pretty serious for a 3rd party to win in the US presidential race.

it takes something pretty serious for any party to win any presidential election.
contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the electoral college isn't just a group of random schmoes voting for whomever they please. your vote actually PICKS which group of electors your state uses (allied by party), and it is exceedingly rare for electors to go contrary to the state's popular vote (almost all states' electors have to vote as a single unit so even if there's a dissenter, he or she is forced to vote with the other electors).
if the popular vote for president was for a 3rd party, the electors would almost certainly vote for that 3rd party.

if the electoral college is an unfair representation of the population, then so is congress--because it's the number of number of senators and representatives that determines how many electors a state has. states' right have to be represented, too, not just the overall population's.

[Toshiro]

Originally Posted by damigu

it takes something pretty serious for any party to win any presidential election.
contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the electoral college isn't just a group of random schmoes voting for whomever they please. your vote actually PICKS which group of electors your state uses (allied by party), and it is exceedingly rare for electors to go contrary to the state's popular vote (almost all states' electors have to vote as a single unit so even if there's a dissenter, he or she is forced to vote with the other electors).
if the popular vote for president was for a 3rd party, the electors would almost certainly vote for that 3rd party.

if the electoral college is an unfair representation of the population, then so is congress--because it's the number of number of senators and representatives that determines how many electors a state has. states' right have to be represented, too, not just the overall population's.

You're missing the point, Perot didn't get any EC votes.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election.

You can vote 3rd party if you want, but it's like writing Mickey Mouse on the ballot, IMO. It's equally likely that the masses of people who don't vote aren't doing it because of the candidates, but because they just don't give a shit and don't want jury duty.

[Naren]

Originally Posted by Toshiro

You can vote 3rd party if you want, but it's like writing Mickey Mouse on the ballot, IMO. It's equally likely that the masses of people who don't vote aren't doing it because of the candidates, but because they just don't give a shit and don't want jury duty.

Originally Posted by damigu

(vote counts are easily accessible public info--i shouldn't have to give sources on something you see with your own eyes every 4 years as election results come in)

Then maybe you should do your math again because presidential elections always have well over 50% turnout rates. Sometimes much higher. If you're only talking about local elections, you may get a smaller percentage like 40% or whatever, but political elections have never once had as low as the election rates you're suggesting.

So, unless you have actual proof where you're getting these suggestions... because what I see with my own eyes is quite a bit higher than 25% or 50%.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by damigu

it takes something pretty serious for any party to win any presidential election.
contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the electoral college isn't just a group of random schmoes voting for whomever they please. your vote actually PICKS which group of electors your state uses (allied by party), and it is exceedingly rare for electors to go contrary to the state's popular vote (almost all states' electors have to vote as a single unit so even if there's a dissenter, he or she is forced to vote with the other electors).
if the popular vote for president was for a 3rd party, the electors would almost certainly vote for that 3rd party.

if the electoral college is an unfair representation of the population, then so is congress--because it's the number of number of senators and representatives that determines how many electors a state has. states' right have to be represented, too, not just the overall population's.

Ok, sorry buddy, but your understanding of the electoral college is shaky at best and, as the Dude says, you're out of your element.

Perot may or may not have gotten 9% of the popular vote - if you can provide a reputable source for that figure, I'll give it to you. However, that figure refers to the overall populat vote, I suspect, which as Toshiro points out has little if not nothing to do with the outcome of a presidential election - in 2000, Gore actually won the popular vote by a think a half percentage point, but because the state-by-state votes played out with Bush winning more states by tight margins and Gore fewer states by wide margins, Bush came out ahead in the Electoral vote (with a little help from the Supreme Court), and won the presidency, even though more Americans wanted Gore to be president.

So, the popular vote (a term by convention used to refer to the vote of the entire country, not an individual state) has nothing to do with the presidential election, and the vote of individual states has everything to do with it. How many states did Perot win a majority in?

And to go WAY back to your earlier point, McCain's refrain right up to the moment he picked Palin was "...but is he experienced enough to lead?" Then, he goes and manages to find someone who by any objective measure is LESS experienced than Obama (I'd be very curious to see this email of yours arguing that Palin is more experienced). It doesn't add up.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by damigu

america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!

75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.

when ross perot ran as an independent a few elections ago, he got about 9% of the vote (again, with only a 25% turnout of the eligible voting population), and that's very significant.

This is conspiracy theory BS. As Matt Crooks pointed out and you later admitted, that 25% voter turnout is inaccurate. Even a bad year you typically see more than half of registered voters showing up at the polls, and a year like this it wouldn't shock me if we broke 70%, considering how much is at stake. We do indeed have two major political parties, and in case youhaven't been paying attention for the last 8 years they have VERY different attitudes towards fixing what's wrong with America. And, even if those remaining 30% of voters turned out and voted for, say, Nader, he'd still be the 3rd place finisher.

[Drew]

Meanwhile, can anyone confirm for certain that that's legit and not a photoshop?