Sign in to follow this  
Spacko

US Presidential Election

74 posts in this topic

Still about a year to go, but the first step is already done as Iowa chose Obama and Huckabee. All the world is affected by who is elected the new President of the United States, so naturally everyone is entitled to an opinion on the election. Besides, Nolfers should be a much more important demographic than Iowans.

 

So who are you all hoping for? Who do you expect to represent the two major parties in the actual election? Does a woman or a black man even stand a chance at the big time? Is the electoral system basically unfair, since you can win without having the most votes in total? And who the heck is Mike Huckabee?

 

All of this, and more. Discuss!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Electoral System is more fair than Popular Vote.

 

US is basically divided to many states and each states has their own laws, etc. If the election is only based on Popular Vote, the candidates will be busy only campaigning to states where they have the most populations, (i.e. California, New York etc). They will only try to satisfy what those states want to hear and ignore the rest of the country. By using Electoral System, each states has somehow equal rights to voice their opinions even though they don't have the same number of populations compare to bigger states.

 

I feel like the country right now is looking for who can bring changes for the better into the fututre (the same thing the candidates have been yapping about). It's not a matter of a gender or race anymore (as the President). My opinion tho, they can't do any worse than this current administration. :)

 

Just my $0.02.

Edited by {BAB}Mr. Archer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who do you expect to represent the two major parties in the actual election?

 

Could be anyone as far as I know. I haven't decided yet whether or not I like Hillary yet or not. I'd like to do more research myself on all of them and continue watching what they say/do more and come up with a decision closer to time to vote.

 

Does a woman or a black man even stand a chance at the big time?

 

Well, I think the answer is yes. I mean I know the excuse "well he/she can't be any worse than what we got last time" isn't a good reason for the country to just say yes, but I honestly think that it might be time for a little change in race/gender.

 

I think Hillary has the balls and the brains to be president, but again it's hard to say if she'll do well. I think she would, but again that's just speculation obviously.

 

Actually Electoral System is more fair than Popular Vote.

 

US is basically divided to many states and each states has their own laws, etc. If the election is only based on Popular Vote, the candidates will be busy only campaigning to states where they have the most populations, (i.e. California, New York etc). They will only try to satisfy what those states want to hear and ignore the rest of the country. By using Electoral System, each states has somehow equal rights to voice their opinions even though they don't have the same number of populations compare to bigger states.

 

I feel like the country right now is looking for who can bring changes for the better into the fututre (the same thing the candidates have been yapping about). It's not a matter of a gender or race anymore (as the President). My opinion tho, they can't do any worse than this current administration. :)

 

Just my $0.02.

 

Actually, that's only half right Archer. California, New York, Texas and Florida do have the most electoral votes of the other states. And yes they are the states that the candidates will be bending over backwards to impress as you said. The problem is exactly opposite of what you said. California, New York etc. are basically the only people who have a real say in who gets elected. The more electoral votes a state is worth (number has to do with population, senators and I think a house representative, but I can't remember). So for example, look at the map below:

 

szsgdztuhf.jpg

 

See, let's take SD (South Dakota) which has 3, compared to California which has 54

 

That means, even if the whole state of South Dakota votes one side, any state with a higher vote count can overrule it. So basically, it doesn't matter at all what they vote, because ultimately the states with the most number of votes (people) are ones who have the say, and even then elected representatives can turn the tide on things too. Also, it's winner takes all which means if for example 54% of a state votes for Candidate A, and the other 46% vote Candidate B, then Candidate A wins ALL of the state's votes.

 

When Bush was running against Al Gore, Al Gore actually won the popular vote. But because of the electoral college system, Bush still won. So basically even though the majority of the country didn't vote for him, he still got into office. Really a great system we have here in America.

 

I know why they can't just go straight into majority votes in this country, but we have to do something about the electoral system because it's destroying the whole purpose of having people vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm expecting the Democratic race to be between Obama and Clinton, of whom I like Obama best. Clinton has gotten her hands a bit too dirty in the last few years.

 

As for the Republican candidates, I don't see a clear favourite. Most seem to have one or two factors that would be a major handicap in the final race. I haven't been able to research it much, but as I understand it Mike Huckabee is the religious candidate. He supports creationism, for example.

 

Whether a woman should/could be elected shouldn't be an issue at all. Even fundamentalist muslim countries have elected women. If they can do it, then it shouldn't be an issue for the US, either. The same goes for the question whether someone's black, obviously.

 

As for the American system of elections, I think it needs a major overhaul. It's too sensitive to gerrymandering, corruption, corporate influence (the amounts of money needed to run are staggering) and it always throws up the same two parties. Proportional representation would eliminate many of those concerns, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear to God if Hillary goes into office Im moving to Canada. :mellow:

 

Goo hit it on the nail. She has gotten her hands far too dirty over the past few years. And I wouldn't trust her judgement at all. I am always questioning whether she has ulterior motives. :unsure:

Edited by KillerGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, KG and I agree on something. Hillary strikes me as a mean power hungry woman (with ulterior motives) who will do anything necessary in order to get what she wants. I understand the appeal of the Clinton name to many democrats but she's changed her mind and herself so many times, pandering to what she thinks the majority want instead of sticking steadfast to whatever her real beliefs are. I doubt she even knows what she truly believes anymore.

 

Even if I was democrat, which I certainly am not, I wouldn't vote for Hillary. Aside from her stance on issues, as a person she totally turns me off. As a woman I find nothing appealing about her whatsoever. If we were to have a woman in the White House I would want it to be someone I admire or can at least respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, KG and I agree on something. Hillary strikes me as a mean power hungry woman (with ulterior motives) who will do anything necessary in order to get what she wants. I understand the appeal of the Clinton name to many democrats but she's changed her mind and herself so many times, pandering to what she thinks the majority want instead of sticking steadfast to whatever her real beliefs are. I doubt she even knows what she truly believes anymore.

 

Even if I was democrat, which I certainly am not, I wouldn't vote for Hillary. Aside from her stance on issues, as a person she totally turns me off. As a woman I find nothing appealing about her whatsoever. If we were to have a woman in the White House I would want it to be someone I admire or can at least respect.

 

Which leads to another question not yet asked: do people decide who to vote for on personality or policy? I can understand that the fact that a president has so much power, that people weigh in personality. But on the other hand it seems so shallow...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh, I agree kinda. I can't say too much about Hillary, so I won't comment on her. Bottom line on this for me is: They can believe in whatever they want, eat whatever they want, do what they want to do in the "privacy" of their own house :) , just so long as they actually govern well. So many people get hung up on the minor details and have to like them in every way imaginable, but that's just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which leads to another question not yet asked: do people decide who to vote for on personality or policy? I can understand that the fact that a president has so much power, that people weigh in personality. But on the other hand it seems so shallow...

 

Oh man, you gotta quit reading my mind Sonic! We are thinking the same on this, but you express it a lot better than I do. So I thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, KG and I agree on something. Hillary strikes me as a mean power hungry woman (with ulterior motives) who will do anything necessary in order to get what she wants. I understand the appeal of the Clinton name to many democrats but she's changed her mind and herself so many times, pandering to what she thinks the majority want instead of sticking steadfast to whatever her real beliefs are. I doubt she even knows what she truly believes anymore.

 

Even if I was democrat, which I certainly am not, I wouldn't vote for Hillary. Aside from her stance on issues, as a person she totally turns me off. As a woman I find nothing appealing about her whatsoever. If we were to have a woman in the White House I would want it to be someone I admire or can at least respect.

 

 

Amen Bella. Too many times she has compromised her position to appeal to whomever she's attempting to appeal to. Sadly, she might be a great President if she only stayed on her course. I am also not a democrat. And Im almost positive Obama isn't ready to tackle being Head Hancho. Only for that reason would I ever vote for Hillary. Hillary used to be a great advocate to this country. Unfortunately nowadays she seems to always want something different than what we as a people want. She has some interesting ideas worth being considered, But her actions thus far have shown she is one who will manipulate to achieve her goals. I actually liked her when her political career was first taking off. :(

 

Trigger, Goo. You have to understand it IS a package deal. You don't separate personality and policy. Personality is key to electing a President. Personality traits also play a factor. If someone is willing to compromise themselves to get what they want, What does that tell you about the integrity of that person? How will they lead this nation if they can't holdfast to their integrity and honor? I am all for new ideas. But I want them to be HER ideas from HER view on this country. Not "what views will get me more votes and popularity". If you look back on her early days, Hillary had some ideas definitley worth taking a look at. Now, I feel as though those ideas are being fed or created to get her where she aspires to be, The Presidency. :unsure:

 

Also take a look at Bella's sig. I think it speaks true here with Hillary.

Edited by KillerGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, coming from (and living in) a country thas has proportional representation and therefore coalition governments, I don't think compromise is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, people who are completely consistent and follow their principles through to the extreme (like the ones who "don't stop until five past twelve") seem rather scary to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Bush was running against Al Gore, Al Gore actually won the popular vote. But because of the electoral college system, Bush still won. So basically even though the majority of the country didn't vote for him, he still got into office. Really a great system we have here in America.

 

Bill Clinton never got a majority of the vote either. 49% was his personal best.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a woman I find nothing appealing about her whatsoever.

As a woman, how do you feel about her little crying episode yesterday? Totally manufactured, if you ask me. Set back feminism by a few decades, but if it gets her a few votes form sentimentalist weenies, so be it, right?

Edited by {SFI}Independent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a woman, how do you feel about her little crying episode yesterday? Totally manufactured, if you ask me. Set back feminism by a few decades, but if it gets her a few votes form sentimentalist weenies, so be it, right?

Amen Indy. :rolleyes: Sooo sad. She used to be a such an asset..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I'd rather see her cry than lie.

You must be talking about her husband?

 

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN!"

bclinton.jpg

Edited by RXS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Clinton never got a majority of the vote either. 49% was his personal best.

 

As far as I could read from Wikipedia, he had a pretty clear majority both times he won (5.5% in 1992, 8.5% in 1996). True that he never went above 50%, but since Ross Perot ran as a third candidate and drew quite a few votes, that wasn't necessary nor possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must be talking about her husband?

 

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN!"

bclinton.jpg

 

I am actually. I'm talking about him and Bush. Bush is just an A-hole. But all pubic hairs aside, I think Clinton should have just came out and said: Yes, she gave me head. I'm not ashamed about it because my wife Hilary isn't giving me any. And if you don't like it, you can all suck me off too. What I do in my personal time is my business, and unless it's against the law I'm not entitled to explain what I did.

 

If he would have come right out and said that, I would have completely respected him. As it doesn't effect his job of running the country and he's not breaking any laws, he could have gotten head every night from Monica and I wouldn't have complained a bit. As a matter of fact, BJs tend to make everyone a little bit more pleasant most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I could read from Wikipedia, he had a pretty clear majority both times he won (5.5% in 1992, 8.5% in 1996). True that he never went above 50%, but since Ross Perot ran as a third candidate and drew quite a few votes, that wasn't necessary nor possible.

 

That's a plurality, not a majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a plurality, not a majority.

 

Indeed you're right! In my native language we don't use different words for the two. Glad to be learning though!

 

If you'll permit me an observation, still, the point Trigger seemed to be making is/was actually irrespective of the distinction between majority and plurality. The point was that Al Gore actually got more votes in total (48.4 percent to Bush's 47.9, according to Wikipedia). I guess we can agree that there's a certain difference between not getting a plurality and failing to get a majority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am actually. I'm talking about him and Bush. Bush is just an A-hole. But all pubic hairs aside, I think Clinton should have just came out and said: Yes, she gave me head. I'm not ashamed about it because my wife Hilary isn't giving me any. And if you don't like it, you can all suck me off too. What I do in my personal time is my business, and unless it's against the law I'm not entitled to explain what I did.

 

If he would have come right out and said that, I would have completely respected him. As it doesn't effect his job of running the country and he's not breaking any laws, he could have gotten head every night from Monica and I wouldn't have complained a bit. As a matter of fact, BJs tend to make everyone a little bit more pleasant most of the time.

No. When you hold the highest public office in the land you are expected to conduct yourself in an ethical matter which does not include reliving your frat days with the college coeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. When you hold the highest public office in the land you are expected to conduct yourself in an ethical matter which does not include reliving your frat days with the college coeds.

 

or murdering innocent people or lying or destroying evidence or torturing people or....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just because he's the president he shouldn't be allowed BJs? Is that what you're telling me? Or better yet, that someone who is the president of the US doesn't deserve an occasional BJ due to his highly stressful position? Come on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or murdering innocent people or lying or destroying evidence or torturing people or....

 

Word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this