Presidential Politics

[DarthSegVator]

Don't confuse a democratic republic with a democracy.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by jryan

Well that is fine, but these are clearly two different situations. I was correcting something Karl said. Now do I think it was wrong that the laws were followed versus the people's vote? Well yes, but I don't expect you to because I realize that is my opinion and it is very biased. Had the tides turned and Bush won the people's vote and Kerry won by the law, maybe I would feel different maybe not.

I just know that Karl is a very literal person. He has picked apart my posts before for one word that is off. I figured I would return the favor and correct his mistake of saying the PEOPLE voted Bush in twice, as this is not so! Now, you and him sitting there and saying that he was voted by the law so it is right, I have to take that for face value. I respect your opinion, but do not agree as we both have a bias. The only difference is your guy won, mine didn't!!

Jeremy Ryan

Jeremy,

You cannot decide to define the world by your own subjective rules, and then say that you corrected me...

You did not...

You asked a question that had no answer, then said that I was wrong...

The electoral college has been around for a long long time. It is the way that the people of the United States elect people. It is not wrong to say that the people of the United States elect their president. It is the way it is done...

You just want to rewrite history, and cannot do it, so you just make believe something untoward has happened...

It is actually less common to have no controversy at an election, than it is to not have one. The losers always cry foul! That is the way the world seems to work these days...

I did not say anything that anyone here did not understand. I suspect including you... But, for some reason, you think you can somehow rub my nose in the fact that one number that is not part of the final decision is a number you would rather use. GOOD FOR YOU! You have tried this several times in the past with me, and it is getting old...

Our president is our president. Better luck with changing the government next time...

Furthermore, it may surprise you to know that I don't particularly care for the electoral college either... But I don't know of a better, more fair way to represent the different values and different states. If this went on the popular vote itself, then the coasts and maybe Chicago would always run the country. There would be very little representation for the center of the country, where the population density is not so great...

If you can write a better constitution, and a better set of laws than this great country has, again, good for you! Go do it. Just do not expect me to though this one under the bus, just because you would rather have a more socialist form..

So, before you decide to tell people that you are correcting me, you may want to actually correct me first.

[jryan]

I'm sorry Karl, I was under the impression that when you say THE PEOPLE voted something, anything, into action, you need to have some sort of majority amongst the PEOPLE!! Guess I didn't get the memo where that changed. My bad man!!


Jeremy Ryan

[BillPaxton]

I disagree Jeremy - as five flags put it so well, you can follow the rules or choose not to, but you can't just thumb your nose at the rules you don't like and cry no fair...no one has a problem cashing the check GWB sends to you, you may say it's a fair payback, but you cash the check. I challenge you to rip it up. If you think the supreme court would sit back and watch the wrong candidate take office, think again - review the decision of Bush v Gore once more and in particular read Renquist's opinion. You are very clearly picking and choosing the history that suites your argument, and that position has not worked for anyone but the Catholic church so far. Let's extrapolate one step further - if Bush was elected by popular opinion but by narrow margine, would you then say it was not your will because you were only narrowly defeated? rules are rules, the highest court stood for Bush in each ruling. You are an American and you accept the constitution, so if you want to burn a flag, you'd best not do it where I can see you.
And you weren't alive during Vietnam - I remember watching the news and seeing US deathtolls of 520 - EVERY MONTH. For FIVE STRAIGHT YEARS! If I'm not mistaken, during that one police action there were close to 29,000 US casualties, and if you are implying that Bush is a bad president because in half the time we have only sustained 4,025 casulaties, I am not sure I follow you. If, on the other hand you condemn him for Katrina, then I have lost all respect for your opinion. If its something else, I am willing to listen. I don't like him for completely different reasons, and not one pertains to oil, Cheney, or Haliburtan. But, to be fair, tell me precisely why you don't like him so I can figure out where you are coming from.
You do not speak for the "people", we ALL do.
If you want to attack someone who crippled the country and lead to massive recession, look at people like Jefferey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, people that ruined entire communites and have crushed the American dream for some families for generations.

I like you alot, I consider you a friend, but I think you need to think past the next play on the chess board and see the problems that our presidents have to face. Yes, we can withdraw 100% of troups from overseas. Tell me what you think will happen then.

I pose that as a question...
+B

Originally Posted by jryan

I'm sorry Karl, I was under the impression that when you say THE PEOPLE voted something, anything, into action, you need to have some sort of majority amongst the PEOPLE!! Guess I didn't get the memo where that changed. My bad man!!


Jeremy Ryan

[jryan]

Bill I will get to your post at a time in which I am not working on midterms (and when I am not in the mood to smack the sh!t out of someone who makes me mad, don't worry you didn't). I just have to say people always seem to make something more complicated than it is. I never said I spoke for the people. All I said from the beginning was that the people did not vote Bush into office.

I stand by that. By literal definition, when the people vote for something the majority rules. I am only talking about THE PEOPLE NOTHING ELSE!!! Why is this so hard to understand?? The majority of the people in America voted for Gore. It was not me, yet others who twisted it into whether it was right or wrong, etc.

Everyone, please come back when you have an objection to my statement. Do not say anything about the electoral college or whether it was right or wrong because that is opinion. The fact is that the statement THE PEOPLE in the context used means the majority of people, henceforth the majority of citizens. And THE PEOPLE did not vote Bush into office.

I am not trying to rewrite history, history says the same. History says that Bush lost the popular (THE PEOPLE's) vote! You all make this much more complicated than it is!


Jeremy Ryan

[BillPaxton]

you have managed to hear nothing I said. As Paulothemanio said, "...the empty can rattles the loudest."
+B

Originally Posted by jryan

Bill I will get to your post at a time in which I am not working on midterms (and when I am not in the mood to smack the sh!t out of someone who makes me mad, don't worry you didn't). I just have to say people always seem to make something more complicated than it is. I never said I spoke for the people. All I said from the beginning was that the people did not vote Bush into office.

I stand by that. By literal definition, when the people vote for something the majority rules. I am only talking about THE PEOPLE NOTHING ELSE!!! Why is this so hard to understand?? The majority of the people in America voted for Gore. It was not me, yet others who twisted it into whether it was right or wrong, etc.

Everyone, please come back when you have an objection to my statement. Do not say anything about the electoral college or whether it was right or wrong because that is opinion. The fact is that the statement THE PEOPLE in the context used means the majority of people, henceforth the majority of citizens. And THE PEOPLE did not vote Bush into office.

I am not trying to rewrite history, history says the same. History says that Bush lost the popular (THE PEOPLE's) vote! You all make this much more complicated than it is!


Jeremy Ryan

[jryan]

Originally Posted by BillPaxton

you have managed to hear nothing I said. As Paulothemanio said, "...the empty can rattles the loudest."
+B

Henceforth why I said I will get to your post later! Sorry, you seem to have missed that part! Maybe the quote would work well for you!! Sorry Bill I like you man, but you chose the wrong day to battle!! Today I fight to the death because I have nothing to lose (not literally of course)!!

Jeremy Ryan

[Five-Flags]

Originally Posted by jryan

...

All I said from the beginning was that the people did not vote Bush into office.

I stand by that. By literal definition, when the people vote for something the majority rules. No, it doesn't! The law rules!! If you try to claim otherwise, you're trying to usurp the authority of the Constitution of the United States. I am only talking about THE PEOPLE NOTHING ELSE!!! Why is this so hard to understand?? The majority of the people in America voted for Gore. It was not me, yet others who twisted it into whether it was right or wrong, etc.

Allow me to introduce you to the "twisters" you feel have wronged you:

(excerpt from the Constitution of the United States)

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
...

You may note that this was ratified over two hundred years ago, and has somehow managed to remain in effect, despite how badly it meets your needs.

Everyone, please come back when you have an objection to my statement.

OK, I'm back! <grin>

Do not say anything about the electoral college or whether it was right or wrong because that is opinion.

No, it was opinion back in 1800, before it became part of the Constitution.

The fact is that the statement THE PEOPLE in the context used means the majority of people, henceforth the majority of citizens.

Unfortunately (for you, I think it fortunate) the context used (that of an election) is NOT governed by random opinions of what should be, but by what is legal and binding.

And THE PEOPLE did not vote Bush into office.

The people voted. Check.
The electors received the results of their respective States. Check!
The electors transmitted their ballots to the seat of the government, to the attention of the President of the Senate. Check!!
The ballots were counted in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Check!!!
The person having the greatest number of votes shall be President!!!

CHECK!!!!

Lo and behold -- THE PEOPLE did vote Bush into office!

I am not trying to rewrite history, history says the same. History says that Bush lost the popular (THE PEOPLE's) vote! You all make this much more complicated than it is!

Jeremy Ryan

Not so much -- you just have to accept facts as facts and it's pretty easy!

You're falling for the fictitious "popular" vote. But that is not how this country does it. We also do not have royalty(except in the minds of a few select Senators - but I digress). Also not done here. If the "popular vote" WAS the law of the land, do you think there just might be a few changes in the campaign strategies??

According to Wikipedia, the top nine states in population contain slightly more than half of the total population. The twenty-five lowest-population states contain less than one-sixth of the total population.

Do you think a candidate would bother with #20 on the list (WI)? Do you think you'd have a real impact on the candidate's platform, or how s/he behaved in office? The issues that you want addressed?

I'm afraid I'm a little older and more cynical, but I'd say you wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell!

Of course, that's just MY opinion - and perhaps a few others' as well.

[jryan]

Look, you all are just waisting my time! I say something and you respond with something completely away from what I said in the first place. You are choosing what I say and it is not actually what is being said. Now I know you all have more conservative views and that is fine, but there is no point in me constantly saying the same thing and you constantly not reading it and then you constantly saying the same thing back. We could go for years and you may never actually hear what I am saying. Does anyone on the liberal side understand what I am saying?

Perhaps you could repeat it, maybe the same thing would hold different weight if said from someone else! But for me to sit here and continue is just waisting my time. Come back when you actually want to respond to what I said, not what you choose to make it. Thanks and have a great day!


Jeremy Ryan

[pam]

Ah, Jeremy. Why do you think that I've not joined in? We went through this in 2000 and 2004. I've seen these kinds of communications for years. Poor Brina was clobbered. I THINK I probably made a comment at the beginning of this thread or one like it, that it would turn into something like this. Politics tend to make people who believe so firmly in their "beliefs" that they are not open to considering any other option, and even discussing it is impossible.

Pam