@DCGoldPants Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 He's also been on TV, questioning many of the Presidents moves. It goes both ways with this guy. That's his style.....the issue, not the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Taking the nomination and then coming out against Kerry -- well, not even Karl Rove would stoop that low, and certainly not McCain. Would he say no the VP offer? Almost definitely. But take it just to sabotage Kerry later? No way. It takes an incredibly partisan person just to think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 not even Karl Rove would stoop that low, Sure he would. It takes an incredibly partisan person just to think that. Not really. It just takes a guy who wants the top prize at any price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinamatic Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by RedskinsFanInTX :secret: As Redskin fans, we all know we win more games when we have a Republican in the White House. The Cowpukes do better with a Democrat. If you want another Super Bowl, vote for Bush. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the Cowpukes………….. Now I am no Kerry fan but that is ridiculous. And Bush was in the White House for our dismal season last year. :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I see him accepting the nomination for VP from Kerry, then sometime after the convention coming out and removing him saying how far too liberal Kerry would be and that he would destroy the country. In one fail swoop he ruins Kerry's chances, and puts himself at the top of the pecking order for 08 GOP nomination. It's also a signal to Bush that McCain would take a VP slot if Cheney steps down due to "health reasons". Bush/McCain mops up ANY Dem ticket. Hmmm… bit of a conspiracy theory, wouldn’t you say? I guess anything is possible in politics. I think it more likely that the Clintons will try to sabotage Kerry’s election so that Hillary will be free to run in ’08 (while we are setting forth conspiracy theories). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanskins Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I am sorry if this has been covered already, but as I am from Canada and we have a very different election procedure I really have no idea of the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote. The only thing I know of this system is that it cost Gore the last election? Is that correct? Would someone mind explaining this to me if it is not to difficult? If not then i understand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 seanskins, The winner of the presidential race is determined by the electoral college, which is a system set up by the US Constitution. Instead of direct voting for individuals (or for parties/preferences, as in a parliamentary system), people of each state choose "electors," who then vote for the president. (The vote the electors cast is decided by the people.) The number of electors each state gets is roughly proportional to its population, although in actuality it's kind of a hybrid between each state getting equal representation and proportional voting by population. Whoever gets the most electoral votes wins. Because electoral votes are not directly proportional to population, and because it's "winner take all" in each state (so if a state were split 51-49, the winning candidate would get ALL the electoral votes, not 51% of them), the electoral result may differ from the popular result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 The gap will really grow as more of Kerry's skeletons continue to fall out of the closet. Kerry is a complete piece of human garbage and I cannot wait to see the torturing look of despair and defeat on his face come election night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanskins Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Is this popular amongst american citizens? So do you vote for a party or a candidate? What i am getting of this is american people vote for a republican/democratic party member who in turn counts for votes cast towards a certain presidential candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 seanskins, You vote for a candidate. The electors are forced to vote for whoever the people of the state vote for (so if Virginia has ten electors, and 54% of the people in Virginia vote for Bush, then Bush gets ten electoral votes automatically). OSF, So much schadenfreude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Skin Fan Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 seanskins, it is a horrible, outdated system that should be changed. It wasn't until the 2000 election that the flaws in this system finally presented itself- the popular vote winner did not become president. It was conceived at the Constitutional Convention in 1787; a time when a large amount of citizens and popular vote were seen as too "untrustworthy" (and probably rightly so at the time) to choose such an important decision. The founding fathers wanted the elections to be politically independent; so election by congress was not acceptable. Thus the electoral college was born. Once mass mediums were readily accessible, allowing voters to be more informed nationwide, this system should have been changed. But it is damn near impossible to change an amendment to the Constitution, especially one as entrenched as this one is. We can only hope one day it may happen. Then our individual vote will really count. Take me for example---I live in Texas and I'm anti-Bush. My vote basically won't count because there is no way in hell Kerry can win Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black OSF, So much schadenfreude. Generally speaking, no. In this particular case, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilgamesh Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Poll Says Bush Is Losing Support on Iraq By WILL LESTER WASHINGTON (AP) - Public approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq has slipped to a new low - alongside his overall job rating - after last week's grisly deaths of four contractors in Fallujah, a poll says. Still, a majority supports his decision to use military force in Iraq, says the poll released Monday. Four in 10, or 40 percent, approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 53 percent disapprove. That's down from six in 10 who approved in mid-January, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Bush's overall job approval is at 43 percent, a low point for his presidency, down from 56 percent in mid-January. In the new poll, 47 percent disapproved of Bush's job performance. Bush's job approval soared to 90 percent after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and remained in the 70s for almost a year after that. Public support for the decision to use military force in Iraq has not changed. The poll found that 57 percent think the United States made the right decision to use military force - about the same as in early February. "People are sticking to their guns on whether this was the right decision, but they're beginning to feel a little more wary about how long our troops are exposed to these dangers,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "While they think this was the right thing to do, they don't think Bush is handling it very well.'' Kohut suggested the drop in Bush's overall approval rating may be caused by a combination of domestic and overseas concerns. Public interest in high gas prices rose to 58 percent who said they were following the story very closely, compared with 47 percent who felt that way in mid- March. "He's got bad news out of Iraq, interest in gasoline prices is soaring,'' Kohut said. He added that the effect of last Friday's report of more than 300,000 new jobs may not be evident in polls yet. The poll of 790 adults was taken Thursday through Sunday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Half of those polled, 50 percent, said the United States should keep troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed there, while 44 percent said the U.S. should bring troops home as soon as possible. In January, 63 percent said the United States should keep troops in Iraq until there is a stable government. On the Net: Pew Research Center: http://www.people-press.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 3, 2004 Author Share Posted May 3, 2004 Thought I'd bump up this thread as the stats have been updated with news from the latest polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravens777 Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma So Kerry wins the election in March and Bush wins in November, not bad Bush is the winner hands down. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, but it’s very frightening to think of what would have happened to this country if Gore was in Office when 911 occurred. Clinton turned his cheek for self serving reasons and ignored Bin Ladden for years. Please people at least we know Bush stands for our rights and what is best for this country. We need another 4 years of Bush to resolve the war and correct some issues that have been ignored for to many years.......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I don't think anyone has a clear lead at this point but I fear a Kerry win. As usual I have issues with both candidates but the idea of Kerry groveling to a corrupt UN and France for support makes my blood boil, and that is the only plan he has offered. But Kerry is a savy politician and he is adept at telling people what they want to hear. These are scary times and people want simple solutions. Kerry will offer them even if they do not exist and that is going to bring him an awfull lot of votes. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishhead Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by Ravens777 Bush is the winner hands down. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here, but it’s very frightening to think of what would have happened to this country if Gore was in Office when 911 occurred. Clinton turned his cheek for self serving reasons and ignored Bin Ladden for years. Please people at least we know Bush stands for our rights and what is best for this country. We need another 4 years of Bush to resolve the war and correct some issues that have been ignored for to many years.......................... What was that? Bush stands for rights? What? The right to jail or demonize those who dissent or question? The right for corporations to walk on the working class? Ah its ok.. you can't be expected to know too much, I mean, you are a ravens fan. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Wrong liberals. The democrats have to pick a decent candidate and that would not be graham or gephart. Think jewish and a guy who did stick to his convictions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravens777 Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by phishhead What was that? Bush stands for rights? What? The right to jail or demonize those who dissent or question? The right for corporations to walk on the working class? Ah its ok.. you can't be expected to know too much, I mean, you are a ravens fan. :laugh: Funny all the issues you speak of were ignored for 8 years under Clinton, but that was ok I guess? How can you turn your head to what went on for 8 years? This country went to pot under Clinton. My niece who was in 1st grade at the time came home from school and asked me why does the President have a girlfriend. Tell me what do you say to a 1st grader that asks that question? Is there any reason to wonder why the morals of this country have went to gutters. Thanks Billy!!! Need I say Mr. Billy stained the white House when he was in office. To your comment about me being a Raven fan, I have only one thing to say Go Ravens. My question to you is how does ones football team explain what a person knows, as you put it? I guess you just cleared a lot of things up for us....... What an asset you are to the world....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 If the economy continues to boom, Kerry wont have a chance. Especially if Nader stays in the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravens777 Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If the economy continues to boom, Kerry wont have a chance. Especially if Nader stays in the race. I agree with you. Nader may have a big impact on the outcome of this race............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishhead Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by Ravens777 Funny all the issues you speak of were ignored for 8 years under Clinton, but that was ok I guess? How can you turn your head to what went on for 8 years? This country went to pot under Clinton. My niece who was in 1st grade at the time came home from school and asked me why does the President have a girlfriend. Tell me what do you say to a 1st grader that asks that question? Is there any reason to wonder why the morals of this country have went to gutters. Thanks Billy!!! Need I say Mr. Billy stained the white House when he was in office. To your comment about me being a Raven fan, I have only one thing to say Go Ravens. My question to you is how does ones football team explain what a person knows, as you put it? I guess you just cleared a lot of things up for us....... What an asset you are to the world....... Its really not surprising that you keep going back to Clinton, when you have no ammunition worthy of discussion, the name Clinton comes in handy. But you are right on a few points. Civil rights (the dissent part) was not a real huge issue under Clinton, or at least not as dire as it is now. The working class getting screwed under Clinton? You betcha. So you're right there. But here is the problem, 777, I didn't ignore Clinton. I don't like the man, I still don't. But I don't like him because he was too conservative in his policies, not because he liked recieving blowjobs from chubby interns. Thats really a shame about your niece, boo hoo. Morals of this country? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Just because everyone doesn't believe in the same things or do the same things it means the "morals have gone to the gutters"? I guess thats just another right-wing talking point I fail to agree with. In finishing, a football team doesn't explain what a person knows, it was basically a joke. But the ravens are a pretty pitiful team to like. At least I'm an "asset" (whether negative or positive it depends) to the world, and not a "asshead." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by phishhead What was that? Bush stands for rights? What? The right to jail or demonize those who dissent or question? The right for corporations to walk on the working class? Ah its ok.. you can't be expected to know too much, I mean, you are a ravens fan. :laugh: You really ARE nuts arent you? WHO has been jailed for their dissent? Michael Moore spreads hate and lies (read: demonizing) about Bush and he gets a freakin' Oscar. And what corporation is "walking on the working class"? You sound like a comunist propaganda writer from a bad war movie. A word of advice... seek help. :insane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravens777 Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by phishhead Morals of this country? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Just because everyone doesn't believe in the same things or do the same things it means the "morals have gone to the gutters"? I guess thats just another right-wing talking point I fail to agree with. In finishing, a football team doesn't explain what a person knows, it was basically a joke. But the ravens are a pretty pitiful team to like. At least I'm an "asset" (whether negative or positive it depends) to the world, and not a "asshead." What I mean about morals going to the gutters, well lets see ask any mother of a elementary daughter how she feels about it. What example did Billy boy set for the future of this country by getting hummed in the Oval office? My reply to your football statement was in jest as well, you may not be an "asshead" but you take the first three letters of that word of the word and you have the name of the President you stand to protect. I refuse to play party to your resentful view points any longer. :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Thought I'd bump up this thread as the stats have been updated with news from the latest polls. Again, it all comes down to the wing states. . . Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. If Kerry is to win, he needs two of the three. The Kerry elections campaing will focus tremendously on these three states, with a smaller focus on the swing states with less electoral votes (Minn, Missouri, Arizona and Nevada). He doesn't have the deep pockets of the Republican party, so he will have a more acute focus than Bush, and I think he's going to be spending feverishly in these states. The question really is Florida. Bush is up by .21%, and the last election had him winning by under 1000 votes. I think a real focus will be to get the people out to vote and I also think some of the crap that went on in Florida last election won't happen this time around. As of right now though, it looks like it could be an election where we have to wait a few days after the election to see who the winner is. It sure looks like it's shaping up this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.