"Peaceful" Protestors, Not So Peaceful

[quasi-modo]

I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.

What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!

He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.

[dxoigmn]

I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.

What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!

He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.

And they probably should since they put more money into this economy then any other states.

[CrAz3D]

If we're gonna say only the rich can go, shoulnd't we go all the way & say only rich white men can vote?...That means about 20 votes for the democrats & maybe a few thousand for the republicans.

(The 200 included the wanna-be ppl in Hollywood that "act" for a living)

[Hazard]

I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.

What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!

He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.

And they probably should since they put more money into this economy then any other states.

You're saying only the wealthy states with high production rates should be allowed to cast ballots? Things were done like that in the early 1800's before it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and now everyone has a voice. Lets just shred the constitution so you and your Democrat pals can win the elections.

[Mephisto]

I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.

What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!

He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.

I fail to see how without the electorial college that California and New York would rule the nation...If the presidency was based on popular vote the removal of the electorial college wouldn't enable California or New York to *always* give the Democrats the win.  Here in California there are tons of Republicans and IIRC there was a close race between the republicans and democrats in the 2004 election.

[Hazard]

The point is, the majority of the states, nor the majority of the people, nor the majority of electoral votes sided with John Kerry in this election. During the 2000 election, the majority of the states and the electoral college elected President Bush. The electoral college will not be removed because it ensures fairness in the system. Remember the Virginia and New Jersey plans being formed so there is equal representation in elections and in congress? The fact is, the Democrats are the ones pushing for popular vote because it suits their own interests and nobody elses. Unfortunately for them, it really backfired this election.

[quasi-modo]

I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.

What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!

He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.

I fail to see how without the electorial college that California and New York would rule the nation...If the presidency was based on popular vote the removal of the electorial college wouldn't enable California or New York to *always* give the Democrats the win.  Here in California there are tons of Republicans and IIRC there was a close race between the republicans and democrats in the 2004 election.

If we did not have elctoral college though the more populated states would be able to get plenty of pork through the legislature because our elected executive officials would be able to get it into congress and also and maybe even able to play with appropriated funds. I am not talking about democrat or republican I am talking about strictly metropolistic areas and the rest of the country.

[hismajesty]

Is 'pork' your word for the week?

[quasi-modo]

Is 'pork' your word for the week?

yeah! I can use it in so many ways. Such as: pork barrel spending, I like to eat pork, I porked your mom, so on and so fourth 

[CrAz3D]

OH that is wrong...just so SO wrong.

[Mephisto]

My understanding is that the electorial college applys only to the presidential election, so I don't understand why you'd say New York and California would control the nation...Every state has electorial votes proportionate to their population, so what's wrong with getting rid of the electorial college when the popular vote is just fine.  Your statement makes no sense (at least to my understanding).  There are republicans in those democratic states, and in California it's practically 50/50.

[dxoigmn]

My understanding is that the electorial college applys only to the presidential election, so I don't understand why you'd say New York and California would control the nation...Every state has electorial votes proportionate to their population, so what's wrong with getting rid of the electorial college when the popular vote is just fine.  Your statement makes no sense (at least to my understanding).  There are republicans in those democratic states, and in California it's practically 50/50.

54% of people in California voted for Kerry.  45% of people voted for Bush.  That's not 50/50. 

The electoral college sucks, it's an outdated system.  I'd vouch for popular vote just because it seems more fair and direct, not because it would help those who I support - unlike Hazard would lead you to believe.

I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.

What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!

He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.

And they probably should since they put more money into this economy then any other states.

You're saying only the wealthy states with high production rates should be allowed to cast ballots? Things were done like that in the early 1800's before it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and now everyone has a voice. Lets just shred the constitution so you and your Democrat pals can win the elections.

Yes I am constitution shredder, I hate it I hate it I hate it because the constitution sucks sucks sucks!  Haha, anyways, yes that is what I am saying and that is exactly what I typed out: "I am saying only the wealthy states with high production rates should be allowed to cast ballots."  That's exactly what it says a few posts above.

[Mephisto]

I was being a bit promiscuous when I said 50/50, but IIRC the number of republicans in California is going up.  And suffice it to say, the removal of the electorial college wouldn't make California and New York the nations controllers.  Perhaps not New York, but in California, there's a lot of republican party support, and if you add up the votes from California and other states from the republicans it'd be fair.  In nearly all cases the person who won the popular vote won the electorial college, except for a few (maybe one?) which included the 2000 election which Gore should've won since he won the popular vote by over 500,000 people in the argument that the electorial college should be done away with.

[hismajesty]

What's a good reason to get rid of the electoral college? Except to, of course, give Democrats more of an advantage.

[MyndFyre]

What's a good reason to get rid of the electoral college? Except to, of course, give Democrats more of an advantage.

Apparently not.  Bush won by a large margin, the Dems lost House and Senate seats as well as gubernatorial positions.  They really lost across the board.