RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 9:37:13 AM)

awww come on! i cant decifer any of that Master Tim!!



Musicmystery -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 9:40:00 AM)

You don't get Google where you live?



mnottertail -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 9:40:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and if I hear you shit, huntie, I will know the bathroom is taken, and leave you to it.

Ron


Binjo doku deska?


Watashi no hobākurafuto wa unagi de ippai desu!



Musicmystery -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 9:44:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and if I hear you shit, huntie, I will know the bathroom is taken, and leave you to it.

Ron


Binjo doku deska?


Watashi no hobākurafuto wa unagi de ippai desu!

私は"あなたの安全な言葉ですが"ホバークラフトを気にしない -
もし私があなたは、ウナギでやっていると言う場合、それで
気もウナギでやって！



DomKen -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 10:33:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Aww come on guys the Hamilton angle is way sexier....intrigue and jealousies.....great men subject to the same human frailities as the butcher down the block.
Why the fuck would you want to punch holes in that particular version ........plus the story has the utility of making great sense.....the person most injured by that requirement was Hamilton....arguably the best and brightest of the Founding Fathers....forever barred from the highest office in the land in the country he so ably helped give birth to.
Shit you guys are no fun !!!!

Hamilton was eligible to be POTUS. He, just like the first several president's, was a citizen of the US when the Constitution was adopted which made him eligible. By 1787 he had been in the US for 15 years which is one more year of residency than the Constitution requires.

Hamilton clearly understood that his then scandolous background and his talent for making enemies meant he could never be President. It didn't keep him from meddling in the 3rd and 4th presidential elections. As a matter of fact reading about his machinations to manipulate the electoral college vote seems to me to be more than sufficient cause to do away with the institution entirely and choose the President strictly on a popular vote basis.



tazzygirl -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 10:37:29 AM)

If we did it by popular vote, half those states with the "power" would become powerless. Dont forsee that happening any time soon.



DarlingSavage -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 10:43:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear
You would think that any person who is a serious contender for President, would have gone through extensive background checks prior to being able to run for presidency? I fail to believe that the security agency would fuck up that bad to allow a person to use a falsified identification and be elected as leader of a country like the US.


Nobody wants to hear that. I've used that same argument myself on a number of occasions. It's quite clear from the Weigel report that the birthers don't want to hear or see any evidence that points to the contrary.



servantforuse -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 10:45:41 AM)

One third of the people in the US live in just 5 states. CA, 35 mil, TX, 22 mil, NY,17 mil, FL, 16 mil and Il, 13 mil...We never want to have a few states electing the president...



tazzygirl -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 10:54:33 AM)

Electoral Votes for those states you cited

Cal... 55
Tx... 34
NY... 21
FL... 27
Il.... 20

total 157

To be elected, 270 is required

You state one third lives in those states... Yet those same states possess over half the electorial votes. Now, who is determining the elections?




Thadius -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 11:00:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Electoral Votes for those states you cited

Cal... 55
Tx... 34
NY... 21
FL... 27
Il.... 20

total 157

To be elected, 270 is required

You state one third lives in those states... Yet those same states possess over half the electorial votes. Now, who is determining the elections?



Tazzy, that is only one half of the electoral votes needed to be elected, not half of the total electoral college. [;)]



tazzygirl -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 11:02:47 AM)

grins

thought i made that clear, Master Thadius. Thank you for pointing out my error.

Those 5 states possess over half the needed electoral votes to determine the President, while, according to servant, those 5 states only possess one third of the population.

These are states with incredible power, especially come election time.



Thadius -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 11:08:18 AM)

It is an incredible power, and the people of this nation have made it so by moving to those states. However, there is still much to be said of the many smaller states still having some power in our current system, even if that power is to temper the heat generated by the larger states.

It even has an impact on the candidates, as they must focus at least part of their efforts on the more rural states. If it was done by popular vote, some states may be lucky to see an advert on the television, or perhaps catch one of the debates being broadcast. The current system encourages visiting at least some of "fly over country".



tazzygirl -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 11:15:20 AM)

If you think you have ever voted at your polling place for the president of the United States, do you know that you are mistaken? Of course, millions of Americans have cast ballots with the names of presidential candidates on them, but those are not votes cast directly for the candidates. Rather, when you vote for president you are actually voting to give electors, pledged to a certain candidate, seats in a body called the Electoral College. The Electoral College, not the general public, elects the president. On election day of last year, 50,996,039 people cast votes for Al Gore, 539,898 (just over one half of one percent of the total popular vote) more than voted for George W. Bush. However, more Bush supporters won seats in the Electoral College, and they elected him 271-266. Is this the best way to elect our president?

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_depangher_unaccept.html

While this is an article from 2001, i do feel its pertinent even now. If the majority of our country votes for one man, why isnt that man president? From my understanding, the Electoral College does not have to vote the way we want them too, as evidenced by the 2000 elections.



Thadius -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 11:15:47 AM)

Besides some of that will change after this year, with the census. So it is possible for a state like Whyoming to get up to 30 seated in the college. Not likely, but possible.



Thadius -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 11:24:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

If you think you have ever voted at your polling place for the president of the United States, do you know that you are mistaken? Of course, millions of Americans have cast ballots with the names of presidential candidates on them, but those are not votes cast directly for the candidates. Rather, when you vote for president you are actually voting to give electors, pledged to a certain candidate, seats in a body called the Electoral College. The Electoral College, not the general public, elects the president. On election day of last year, 50,996,039 people cast votes for Al Gore, 539,898 (just over one half of one percent of the total popular vote) more than voted for George W. Bush. However, more Bush supporters won seats in the Electoral College, and they elected him 271-266. Is this the best way to elect our president?

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_depangher_unaccept.html

While this is an article from 2001, i do feel its pertinent even now. If the majority of our country votes for one man, why isnt that man president? From my understanding, the Electoral College does not have to vote the way we want them too, as evidenced by the 2000 elections.

Each state is allowed to determine how their designees are appointed, most states have a winner take all, Nebraska and Maine split theirs proportionately to the popular vote. It is also true that some delegates are not mandated to vote for the person that chose them as electors (kind of like the hoopla over the Dem convention and going after super delegates).

While the current system may or may not be any better than allowing Congress to choose who is the next pres, it does keep people in the country sort of plugged in to what the hell the administration is doing, and gives a feeling of participation in the process. We aren't a democracy.



thompsonx -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 12:45:21 PM)

While the current system may or may not be any better than allowing Congress to choose who is the next pres, it does keep people in the country sort of plugged in to what the hell the administration is doing, and gives a feeling of participation in the process. We aren't a democracy.


Let's see...the way it is now five states dictate who is president. If it were by the popular vote then those same five states that had over 50% of the power to appoint the president would now see that go down to 33%. How does this not increase the franchise?

And for fucks sake...puullllleeeeezzzzeeee save me the tedious line of shit about how this is not a democracy



InvisibleBlack -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 1:00:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Let's see...the way it is now five states dictate who is president. If it were by the popular vote then those same five states that had over 50% of the power to appoint the president would now see that go down to 33%. How does this not increase the franchise?


Those five states together have 157 electoral votes out of a total of 538.  157/538 = 29.18% so they have slightly less than 30% of the "power" instead of the 33% that a popular vote would give them. The electoral system is reducing their power, not increasing it.



thompsonx -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 1:07:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Let's see...the way it is now five states dictate who is president. If it were by the popular vote then those same five states that had over 50% of the power to appoint the president would now see that go down to 33%. How does this not increase the franchise?


Those five states together have 157 electoral votes out of a total of 538.  157/538 = 29.18% so they have slightly less than 30% of the "power" instead of the 33% that a popular vote would give them. The electoral system is reducing their power, not increasing it.


Yeah I misread that...my bad...thanx for the heads up.



mnottertail -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 1:09:29 PM)

At the end of the day, you gotta wonder who would steal the identity of a black man, (having to go thru all that shit) and if that aint in the hole enough, president of this fuckin' mess......

Nah, I am quite certain he is he.

Ron



Thadius -> RE: President Guilty of Identify Theft? (2/17/2010 1:22:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

While the current system may or may not be any better than allowing Congress to choose who is the next pres, it does keep people in the country sort of plugged in to what the hell the administration is doing, and gives a feeling of participation in the process. We aren't a democracy.


Let's see...the way it is now five states dictate who is president. If it were by the popular vote then those same five states that had over 50% of the power to appoint the president would now see that go down to 33%. How does this not increase the franchise?

And for fucks sake...puullllleeeeezzzzeeee save me the tedious line of shit about how this is not a democracy

So we are a democracy? Since when?

From my understanding of things... each one of those members of the electoral college represents a member of congress, which from my memory that number is based on population (and adjusted every 10 years).

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the winner takes all method that most states use for assigning delegates. I think delegates should be appointed based on district (ie whichever candidate wins the popular vote in each), with the 2 extra votes for the Senators going to whoever wins the overall state popular vote. It would better represent the wishes of the voting populace, and still give the smaller states some power in the selection process.

That however, is for each of the states to decide on their own.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625