Text 7681, 168 rader
Skriven 2007-12-08 09:52:26 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
   Kommentar till text 7658 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: George W. Bush
======================
Hello Janis!

08 Dec 07 00:03, you wrote to me:

 JK> However, the fact that the popular vote did not support Bush IS
 JK> relevant, and that is what I'm talking about.

Irrelevant dearie.

Popular vote didnt favor Clinton in 1992 (43.28%), yet we were supposed to
accept him as POTUS. (Correction on his percent of vote)

Now we know this happened because that pointy nosed Texas businessman whom
stole my name, split the vote. He did so again in 1996 but not as bad.

So if popular vote is your measuring stick, Clinton in 1992, 1996 and Bush II
in 2000 both failed to gain a plurality.

In your lifetime the next closest elections on popular vote in order of
closeness was 1960 (only 120k margin) 1968 and 1976. Ironically in 1972 tricky
Dick enjoyed the biggest margin. (18 or so million)

 JK> Ross.. (sorry to my International friends about going on here, but
 JK> dammit, this is important, sorry to say).

Its important to you only because you crave us to be a welfare state.

 JK> Ross, You seem to be in need of understanding more about the electoral
 JK> college?
[..]

and did you know voting for President is not a constitutional guarantee.

It was initially done by the state legislatures, the constitution only leaves
it up to the states on how to decide to cast their electoral votes. All have
since used the citizens to cast votes, even then, a couple states dont award
all of their electoral votes to the winner of the states total, if a candidate
whom was not the overall winner across the state but won a plurality in a
congressional district, then he got at least that one electoral vote. Sadly
these states dont have a pile of electoral votes for this to matter much, but I
wish all states did this.

What bothers me by the way our population is distributed, is if we went to
strictly popular vote, I might as well let Californians, Floridians, Texans and
New Yorkers select the POTUS.

If states divied up their electoral votes pertinent to congressional district,
it could change alot of things..

From your perspective, South Carolina, a GOP stronghold, might be casting a
vote or 2 to the DEM candidate from districts on the coast, our liberal section
of the state.

After the conventions, Candidates might actually have to campaign honestly in
every state, you know damn well DEM's dont have to spend much time in New York,
California and other areas that are typical DEM strongholds, and same for the
GOP candidates for their strongholds.

 JK> Another interesting thing you holy republicans might like to know is
 JK> that the Founding Fathers whose names come most easily to mind were
 JK> almost all Deists, NOT christians.. they believed in a god who was
 JK> more like a watchmaker God... who made the watch, wound the watch and
 JK> just let it go.

 JK> Do a little research and let me know how often Washington, Jefferson
 JK> and Franklin went to church, huh?

and this is pertinent to this discussion in what way, I am atheist.

According to the stereotypes you hold dear as a Democrat, I should be one
myself, but I am not your typical atheist, I actually defend those of faith
when I see your type advocate that those of faith should hide in the closet so
that gays can come out. If you liberal hearts truly bled, you would be
defending them both!

 >>>> But if they were, did you know that Clinton got only 48% in 1992
 >>>> and 50% of it in 1996?

 >>> Who's talking about Clinton?  I am talking about Bush. Quit changes
 >>> horses midstream to confuse the issue.

 >> I wasnt changing horses, I was broadening your perspective.

 JK> No, you are comparing a two person election with a three person
 JK> election.. you know, we call that "apples and oranges".

In 1992 there were 3 candidates
In 1996 there were 3 candidates
In 2000 there were 4 candidates
In 2004 there were 5 candidates

Are you saying popular vote takes on a different or lesser meaning based on
number of candidates?

 >> If you want to bellyache about popular vote, then you need to cite
 >> more than just the 2000 and 2004 elections.

 JK> No, I don't.  It's all out there for anyone to see.

anyone except you.. :)

Just so you know where I am coming from...

Clinton wasnt my choice in either of his elections, but via the systems in
place, I accepted him as my POTUS, I didnt really have much issue with him
except for the socialism he attempted in 1993 and the scandal that plagued him
that got him impeached. As a citizen I had no choice, I am mature enough to
realize that just because I pull a lever(we used those then) in the booth that
it meant no guarantee that that person would win, I could only fulfill the
privilege to vote.

I even defended Clintons status as POTUS, as I said he was then the elected
POTUS, regardless of 43.28% or 49.95% of popular vote.

There is alot more to the 2000 election than the stupid irrational bullshit
stuff people like you spout "Oh the USSC appointed him", however to be fair,
the losing side of every election always believes the conspiracy theory, just
like football fans always believe the referree's cost the game for their team.
I have also said that the 2000 election is the seed for the democratic hatred
that has plagued this decade and you cannot deny that the radical left has been
given too large a voice, which is in part what led to 2004 re-election and then
you all get on your feet in 2006 and that opportunity has been squandered.

Read this:

http://www.usconstitution.net/elec2000.html

Just read it and dont start a URL posting contest.

One of the reasons I am not a Democrat is those people hold others to standards
that they wont hold to themselves. Heck you all eat your own read: Lieberman!
(He was only your VP nominee in 2000)

You all failed to get over 2000 and move on.

Now I know Bush has fucked up and he has lost support, just as your beloved
democrats in congress have, they have even lower approval ratings than the
current POTUS.

You have this impression that politicians always have the support from those
that voted for them, all politicians fuck up, even those you vote for Janis.

But anyway, Bush for better or worse, is our POTUS until January 2009, then we
get fresh meat to bitch about.

I will seek Michiel Van Der Vlist's personal approval on who to vote for next
year as he seems to take great exception on we over here exercising our rights
to choose.

The one thing we can take from this upcoming election, and we can blame the
squandered 2006 opprtunity, is that this election is not going to be a sure
thing for either party.

The problem with Democrats can be best seen in Venezuela with that Hugo Chavez
madman. He darn near got the constitution changed to enable him to rule for as
long as he wanted. His supporters are those he has given things to ala
socialism. This is how Democrats and people like him keep voting blocks
beholden to them, but in the end their nice programs dont do anything to help
these people, only to keep them dependant. Whats that proverb again, give a man
a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life?

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Blogs/Other Places: http://links.cassell.us
... WORK HARDER! Millions on welfare depend on it.
--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-30413
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)