It's all about the Rush
https://www.by-tor.com/forums/
I read the link. Are you talking about the final paragraphs? Surely you're not interpreting that middle-eastern big-talking threat as an endorsement?Devil's Advocate wrote:Al-Qaida. Read the link.ElfDude wrote:Uh... who? Japan, Italy, Britain and Australia?Devil's Advocate wrote:And a communist endorsement of Kerry pales in comparison with who's endorsing Bush.
If you want to read the US Communist Party's attacks on Bush as an endorsement for Kerry, I think an explicit statement by al-Qaida that they want Bush to win also counts as an endorsement.ElfDude wrote:I read the link. Are you talking about the final paragraphs? Surely you're not interpreting that middle-eastern big-talking threat as an endorsement?Devil's Advocate wrote:Al-Qaida. Read the link.ElfDude wrote: Uh... who? Japan, Italy, Britain and Australia?
Depends how the votes are counted. If it's a simple matter of adding together all the votes cast for each candidate, in one big nationwide tally, then you're right.ElfDude wrote:Incidentally, I've been thinking about something DA said about the two-party system in the U.S. I used to think the exact same thing until 1992. As I mentioned above, in the 1992 election Bill Clinton won the election with 43% of the vote. That can't happen if there are only two parties influencing the election.
Devil's Advocate wrote:That's pretty good analysis. And it's why in our elections the president is still elected by our electoral college, as opposed to the congress and the senate which are elected by a popular vote on a state by state basis. I don't know if that scenario has ever actually played out here, but still...ElfDude wrote: Depends how the votes are counted. If it's a simple matter of adding together all the votes cast for each candidate, in one big nationwide tally, then you're right.
But if it's done state-by-state (or by some other geographical subdivision) then it's quite possible for the winner to have fewer votes in total than the loser. If Clinton had taken more than half of the states, but by a narrow margin in each, while the Republican candidate (Bush snr in '92?) won fewer states, but each by a larger margin, then Clinton could win the election with a minority of the total votes cast in his favour.
This is incidentally one of the flaws in the British system - the third party I mentioned has fewer than 10% of the seats in parliament, but regularly secure around 1/3 of the votes. Needless to say, they're the party pushing for elctoral reform and the introduction of proportional representation....
When I was a kid I remember hearing about the electoral college and thinking, "No way! It should be a popular vote!" But I now understand the virtues of it. You call it proportional representation, and I think I like that phrase. Without it, we could simply have the people of New York City and Los Angeles determining the outcome of all of our elections.
Good one, mate.
i just don't believe he'd be a strong leader. George W. Bush will never waver in defending our country, no matter what the cost. and plus, he's a lot hotter as an old dude than kerryawip2062 wrote:Why I, personally, dislike Kerry (short version): he is too socialistic for me; I prefer liberty and his platform will chip away at what is left of it
saving millions of lives. we found the mass graves of 200,000 innocent people, none of which had EVER committed any serious crime. saddam just didn't like them. how would you feel if that was the way your government was? if your leader decided to pull your father out & kill him just because he felt like it, how would that make you feel? i know not everybody over there is happy we're saving their butts, but we didn't go in expecting a reward.The Snow Dog wrote:what the HELL are we doing in Iraq?
I remember thinking the same thing, and I've changed my mind as well. I always thought if someone won the election but not the popular vote then the Constitution would be changed, but now I realize that the smaller states (i.e., not California, New York and Texas) would never go for it.ElfDude wrote: When I was a kid I remember hearing about the electoral college and thinking, "No way! It should be a popular vote!" But I now understand the virtues of it. You call it proportional representation, and I think I like that phrase. Without it, we could simply have the people of New York City and Los Angeles determining the outcome of all of our elections.
Good one, mate.
I think this is why "Native Americans" or "North American Indians" or "The Indigenous People" or "First Nations People" or whatever the PCers want us to be called now, are the highest per capita ethinic group in the military and why we readily volunteer when our nation needs warriors. Our memories of being the ones treated so by our government have not faded, and we are willing to fight and die if necessary to stop that happening to others.happysmilies007 wrote: saving millions of lives. we found the mass graves of 200,000 innocent people, none of which had EVER committed any serious crime. saddam just didn't like them. how would you feel if that was the way your government was? if your leader decided to pull your father out & kill him just because he felt like it, how would that make you feel?
Yah, Elfie, here in NY it is openly KNOWN that Hill doesn't want Kerry to win. It will kill her shot at the White House in four years.ElfDude wrote:It's been fun to watch. I haven't yet met anyone who actually likes John Kerry. It all seems to be based on Bush support or Bush hatred. But there isn't any real Kerry support out there that I can see in the mainstream population... maybe a little on the fringe. We'll see if the "anyone but Bush" contingency is large enough to elect this other guy that no one really likes.
Mind you, the Kerry campaign recently suffered a hostile takeover by Bill Clinton sending in Carville and Begula (sp?) to run the show. These two ran the Clinton campaign of 1992 and were able to get Clinton 43% of the popular vote. When Morris ran the Clinton campaign of 1995 he was able to get Clinton 49% of the popular vote.
This supports two theories.
1. The Clintons still run the democratic party in this country.
2. The Clintons do not want John Kerry to win this election.
Sure. She didn't want to run this year because it was understood that she wouldn't have the national support to beat Bush (Why do you think she moved to NY in the first place? It was one of only a very few states where she could have been elected as a senator. Everyone in "fly-over country" really dislikes her). But she she can't run in 2008 if there's an incumbant (sp?) democrat. So, the Clintons (or at least Hillary) need to make sure Kerry doesn't win this one. Bill seems to be doing the job nicely.Kares4Rush wrote: Yah, Elfie, here in NY it is openly KNOWN that Hill doesn't want Kerry to win. It will kill her shot at the White House in four years.
So still no one knows?D'Anconia wrote:To paraphrase Senator Kerry - It's a complicated manner...Aerosmitten wrote:So um...what DOES Kerry stand for anyway?
Yah, also why she promised her precious new "constituents" that she would serve out her full term before "leaving us." (ugh) If Kerry loses (I have no idea who is winning right now with all the poo-slinging going on that I can't keep it wiped out of my eyes) she will be OUT of the gate on Nov 3 campaigning (or having others do it for her--subtly at first) for 2008. MARK my words.ElfDude wrote:Sure. She didn't want to run this year because it was understood that she wouldn't have the national support to beat Bush (Why do you think she moved to NY in the first place? It was one of only a very few states where she could have been elected as a senator. Everyone in "fly-over country" really dislikes her). But she she can't run in 2008 if there's an incumbant (sp?) democrat. So, the Clintons (or at least Hillary) need to make sure Kerry doesn't win this one. Bill seems to be doing the job nicely.Kares4Rush wrote: Yah, Elfie, here in NY it is openly KNOWN that Hill doesn't want Kerry to win. It will kill her shot at the White House in four years.