The dif between you and me. Which makes you smarter, likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by "Melyssa K" Kennedy
Self-immolation, baby! You know I'm Tibetan of ancestry.Quote:
Originally Posted by bornlie
Printable View
The dif between you and me. Which makes you smarter, likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by "Melyssa K" Kennedy
Self-immolation, baby! You know I'm Tibetan of ancestry.Quote:
Originally Posted by bornlie
The district Bachmann represents is kinda the black sheep on Minnesota. It's basically the district that's directly to the north of the twin cities, where lots of rich white assholes live. I used to have to teach in some parts of that district, and I had the WORST kids ever. Spoiled little brats. I actually preferred teaching in the inner city schools, full of poor, troubled immigrant kids... true story.Seriously, most of Minnesota hates the 6th district... but nobody wants to move there to vote against Bachmann because fuck everyone who lives there. So really, Minnesotans didn't expect her to lose due to the district she's in... but she'll never get further in the state govt than her district because the rest of the state hates her.Quote:
Originally Posted by XYlophonetreeZ
I really don't understand this shit at all. I actually thought Gary Johnson was a pretty good candidate, and FAR better than Ron Paul. And now I'm STILL hearing about Ron Paul... I get why people have been flocking to the Libertarian party (fed up with the two-party system, want something new), but why are they SO OBSESSED with Ron Paul?? I still heard people talking about RP while Johnson was running... it's like they weren't even aware that RP wasn't the candidate. And yet they call themselves Libertarians. I wonder how many self-proclaimed Libertarians showed up at the polling booth and spent some time searching for Ron Paul's name in confusion before giving up.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebDudette
We're not out of Afghanistan, unfortunately... and I don't think we will be any time soon, based on what military friends of mine who've been deployed there recently have told me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny Vessels
You actually believed Obama truly thought Al Qaeda was defeated?? Hahahaha... he said they were on the path to defeat because he wanted to make the public feel good - that's what politicians do. To think he actually believed that is completely absurd. And making the innocent people from the middle eastern countries suffer as much as we do because of a small percentage of terrorists is really fucked up. We haven't solved anything in the last year we've been over there. Talk about wasting money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOTO13
Minority? Pretty sure that in every election vote, between 60 and 70% of Americans show up at the polls - about the same as Czech Republic, UK, etc. Maybe in Scandinavian countries it's a bit higher, but it's not like Americans are too dumb to vote and just stay home. We have a majority who do vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by RageAndLov
And the electoral college doesn't exist because people are too dumb to pick a president themselves. Very ignorant thing to say.
This is where the electoral college came from:
"while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[7]"
Of course he knew Alqueda was still active. It was 100% complete bullshit. But he wanted the public to believe he actually accomplished something regarding stopping Alqueda. That's why his admin kept repeating it was a spontaneous attack based on some 5 month old video and certainly not Alqueda that he had stated was basically in chaos and no longer a real threat. He didn't want "us" to believe he dropped the ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Llamas
The turn out for the US presidential election hasn't been above 60% since 1968. What I have read in the papers tells me that the turn out this year is estimated to be around 49%, so we will have to see. In 1996 it was at 49%. So maybe the US has barely a majority of votes, or maybe it will be a minority. However, the turn out is very low, and that is a trend amongst First Past the Post democracies like the US where the plurality of votes in that state get counted, and all the others (most often the majority) are thrown away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Llamas
And I was being sarcastic when I said that about the electoral colleges, but I can see no good reason for them actually making the call. What is the purpose of electoral colleges? Why can't the people be trusted to decide who is to be their president? And your argument is that the US has had such a system before, therefore the US should continue to use it. That is not a very good argument.
So, wait... you say our ambassador was killed because Obama thought Al Qaeda was finished ("He thought Alkaeda (or however it is spelled) was defeated and this is exactly why our ambassador was killed."), which would mean Obama actually thought that and the ambassador was killed because Obama lowered the protection... and then you say that Obama didn't *really* believe Al Qaeda was finished, and therefore *didn't* actually lower the protection...Quote:
Originally Posted by MOTO13
Voter turnout this year was lower than usual, at 57.5 percent. 1996 was the last time the US voter turnout was under half, at 49%. And that was the only election since any of us here have been alive that turnout was a "minority" (one percent under half = stretch to call a "minority"...) And maybe - just maybe we have a 10% lower turnout than most countries because a lot of Americans don't like either of the parties and know that the other parties don't have enough money to run the country. Some don't feel that there's any difference. Others find registering difficult (especially the poor) - hell, I found it difficult to register for my first vote in 2004. I voted in 2004 and 2008, but didn't vote this year. Does that make me apathetic? Nope. Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RageAndLov
No, I didn't say that. I just said that's where it comes from. Your joke wasn't obvious, so I was explaining. It'd require an amendment to remove the electoral college, and that's not easy. There have been proposals to alter the process, but none have made it. Two-thirds majority in both houses, plus three-fourths majority of Americans is required to pass an amendment. It's not easy. But proposals will keep coming in and hopefully one of these days one will pass.Quote:
And I was being sarcastic when I said that about the electoral colleges, but I can see no good reason for them actually making the call. What is the purpose of electoral colleges? Why can't the people be trusted to decide who is to be their president? And your argument is that the US has had such a system before, therefore the US should continue to use it. That is not a very good argument.
If by '600,000' you mean '~3,000,000 and potentially rising' and if instead of 'the majority can't be arsed' you actually me 'a majority of those able to vote turned out', then you are totally right.Quote:
Originally Posted by RageAndLov
Why do you blindly hate America so much, Rage?
I just noticed the 600,000 thing. Still being counted, but Obama has 60,652,238 to Romney’s 57,810,407 as of this morning... quite a bit more than 600,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebDudette
I don't even live in the US, I'm no patriot, and I dislike the US more than most Americans (I get accused of hating America by a lot of people back home)... and yet I find Rage's blind America-hate to be beyond obnoxious.
Obamanamadingdong was under pressure to get as many military out of the middle east as he could. After all, he promised this and the election was looming. After he...and I use this term very looely, got rid of OBL, he figured dissaray. Nope. Too many factured cells over there still intact. He ignored requests for security at a god damn American embassy and then all of a sudden, on 9/11 no less, all shit breaks loose. Americans are killed. Obama knew when his poll number dropped by .000001% and yet did not have the forsight to protect an embassy after requests for security were given? Then he says it was spontaneous from a video. Nothing could have been done...but we'll investigate it...after the election. The story was buried by the press. The press spent 2 years grilling Romney about his friggin tax returns, yet spent 10 minutes on a murdered ambassador and 3 other americans on 911. Yeah, call me skeptical. The guy is a fucking liar. Period.
1) I don't think it was 2 years the press was on Romney for his tax returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOTO13
2) It was way more than 10 mins the press spent on the American Embassy
3) It really did start because of a video
4) We really DO need get out of the middle east, we been over way too long
1. Yes it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny Vessels
2. Slightly more thn 10 minutes, but 100 times less press than murdered Americans.
3. You're an idiot.
4. Yes we do. It will be complete an utter choas when or if this ever happens.