Achilles Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I'll let the pictures of Dubya holding hands with King Abdullah speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Then there's that whole thing that reads like very poorly disguised Black Supremacy. THAT'S what gives me the creeps. They've more devoted to Africa than America, which smells like divided loyalties to me. A President who doesn't have America's interests held above all others should not be President of the United States. I did not see those lines, while I admit that there was a strong sense of "we're Black, we're from Africa(or close to it), and we're proud." I did not get a sense of Black Supremacy. If you would like to point out the specific lines that gave you such a feeling, please do. You'll get my personal opinional take on them, but from what I did read, I did not read divided loyalties or Black Supremacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 @topic: I read something yesterday which stated that about 360,000 people showed up to caucus. Suspecting that Iowa's population was larger than 400,000 I began to wonder what percentage of citizens actually caucused. According to wikipedia, Iowa's population is just over 2.9 million. So 360k / 2.9mil = 12% So keeping in mind that the winner of the Iowa caucus typically goes on to win the party nomination, and the caucus turnout was record setting, how does it feel to know that the political process was pretty much decided by a record-breaking 12% of Iowa's population? Hooray civic duty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Hooray civic duty! And for the American Presidental election in 2004, we also had a record-breaking turnout of 60% of registered voters...or about 33% of all of America!!! Which may be a good thing, the higher and more terrible the paratianiship is, the higher the turnout. If we want to deal with the problems in society, we need to have the parties be similar rather than to be so totally different that we have gridlock. The problem with trying to figure out 'real voters' however is that it doesn't include childern who aren't allowed to either vote, as well as illegal aliens. So, basically, it's all just ballpark estimates just made to insult the intelligence of non-voters. Sorry non-voters. Anyone going to vote on Super Tuesday? I hope I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 7, 2008 Author Share Posted January 7, 2008 So keeping in mind that the winner of the Iowa caucus typically goes on to win the party nomination, and the caucus turnout was record setting, how does it feel to know that the political process was pretty much decided by a record-breaking 12% of Iowa's population? Hooray civic duty! What's the percentage of those eligible to vote, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravnas Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Hmm, Let me think, I'm Apathetic towards Romney, Thompsont and the other Republican Candidates And Half the Democratic Candidates cept for Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, Huckabee has a horrible policy, and Giuliani frankly is our September 11th Man(Not A Good Thing)Clinton frankly is unappealing to me. McCain And Paul Seem To know what they're talking about but can't escape their roots. Edwards and Obama are my top two choices though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 What's the percentage of those eligible to vote, though?It didn't say (or else I didn't see it if it did). Assuming that the whole "2.2 children per household" thing still applies, we can guess that 1.45 million is probably close (roughly half). Likewise the percentage doubles (because the sample halved), so 24% instead of 12%. Still disheartening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Keep in mind that in many states in order to vote in the primary you have to be registered with a party. I believe that Iowa is one of these states. Also criminals are counted as citizens, but not eligible to vote, but yeah even if we were to take the best possible numbers, it comes down to (significantly)below 50% turnout for the caucases. I believe the biggest problem with the lackluster voter turn out is the failing of both parties to appeal to the majority of people in the country. Neither party is all that appealing to me. Third parties are a joke currently. Pretty much a throw away vote. Sadly it comes down to voting for who you dislike the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MdKnightR Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Oh, great idea let us take our time and get rid of that nasty little business someday down the road. I’m sure the slaves wouldn’t have minded waiting another 20-30 years. Well, Dr. Paul isn't the only one who suspects that slavery would have eventually collapsed as an institution. But, you're right, causing the deaths of 618,000 Americans in 4 years time was better than a 20-30 year wait. [/sarcasm] And people complain that less than 4,000 troops have died in Iraq? The Civil War was also about a lot more than just slavery. You are correct, the Civil War was about much more than slavery. But I do agree with Dr. Paul that the war should have never happened. Succession was over states rights as defined in the Constitution. The federal government doesn't like the idea of decentralized control. Sound familiar? Good, because it is still going on today. Also in case some of us did not remember our history what he is accusing a President that died in service of his country of is unfounded. Not only did Lincoln offer to buy the slaves in order to free them, he did it twice and it was rejected twice. But don't forget that in his Inaugural Address, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Third parties are a joke currently. Pretty much a throw away vote. A vote for what you believe is NEVER a throw-away vote. It is that mentality that has burdened us with a "two-party" system that doesn't have a dimes worth of difference between them. One can only hope that the disenfranchised among us will stand up and shout before its too late. What will have to happen before you take action and vote your conscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Keep in mind that in many states in order to vote in the primary you have to be registered with a party. I believe that Iowa is one of these states. Which really only applies to the primaries, since depending on the state, some states only allow you to vote for the candidate of your own party, some allow you to vote for both, and some allow minority party members to vote for any, singular candidate. California, I think, allows ALL parties to vote for any candidate in the primaries. When it comes to the real deal, party alignment is irrelevant, democrats can vote republican and republicans can vote Nazi if they so choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Well, Dr. Paul isn't the only one who suspects that slavery would have eventually collapsed as an institution. But, you're right, causing the deaths of 618,000 Americans in 4 years time was better than a 20-30 year wait. [/sarcasm] And people complain that less than 4,000 troops have died in Iraq?[/Quote] I guess that all depends if you were a slave or not. I also see the Civil War as a just war, even though my ancestors (the white ones) were on the losing side. If our nation was willing to tear itself in two, pit families against themselves and allow such slaughter, do you honestly believe the South would have given up slavery so easily? But don't forget that in his Inaugural Address, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."Yes and that still means Dr. Paul remarks are unfounded. He said President Lincoln should have bought the slaves back. Something President Lincoln tried to do twice. Dr. Paul did not mention Lincoln’s Inaugural Address (at least not on “Meet the Press.”) so I fail to see what another failed promises by a politician has to do with Dr. Paul’s remarks. Guess it proves they all lie, even back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MdKnightR Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Guess it proves they all lie, even back then. Ah, but to lie is to be human. Can you honestly say that you've never lied? (pun intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeroldoth Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 A vote for what you believe is NEVER a throw-away vote. It is that mentality that has burdened us with a "two-party" system that doesn't have a dimes worth of difference between them. One can only hope that the disenfranchised among us will stand up and shout before its too late. What will have to happen before you take action and vote your conscience? Seconded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Ah, but to lie is to be human. Can you honestly say that you've never lied? (pun intended)Not in front of reporters or when it is being recorded. I just wished I had the flair for lying politicians do. Even when caught red-handed they smile to the camera and use my favorite line, “Well if you look at the tape you will see that isn’t exactly what I said.” Their careful choice of words allows them to slip away, even though they did not correct the “so-called” misinterpretation at the time because it produced the desired effect. Some consider our current President not to be very bright, but he has a PHD in this technique. Even better than his predecessor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I dunno, redefining what "is" is was pretty good haha... Though I agree, politicians have a flair for redefining what they said in such a context as to make their comments mean what they say they mean. Though Bush Sr kinda got caught... The infamous "Read My Lips" speech. Bush Sr also had Dan Quayle who would say randomly odd ball things every time there was a major incident. The media would cling to that silliness, and people would ignore the major incident. Bush Jr has many of the qualities of Quayle as far as saying the oddball stuff to divert attention. As far as my comments of the third parties, I will say only that at current, there isn't a strong enough third party candidate that matches my preferences. Effectively by voting for that candidate I eliminate my vote against the one of the two that I dislike. A good example of this in action was all of the Nader votes that might have gone for Gore in 2000. For the opposite, party, all the Perot votes that took away from Bush Sr getting re-elected. Though with Gore it was a much closer race, so even a percentage of those Nader votes might have meant the difference between a Gore presidency and a Bush presidency. By essentially throwing my vote away, I may help elect somebody I like less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 8, 2008 Author Share Posted January 8, 2008 You are correct, the Civil War was about much more than slavery. But I do agree with Dr. Paul that the war should have never happened. Succession was over states rights as defined in the Constitution. The federal government doesn't like the idea of decentralized control. Secession, not succession. The South seceded. They did not succeed. A vote is a vote. It's important. If you don't vote for the person you believe in, it's wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MdKnightR Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Secession, not succession. The South seceded. They did not succeed. A vote is a vote. It's important. If you don't vote for the person you believe in, it's wasted. Oh my, a spelling error! I humbly apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Oh my, a spelling error! I humbly apologize. Don't apologize...deny, deny, deny. It was a keyboard error. Spell check messed it up. You would never see a politician admit to making such an error without having a scapegoat. A vote is a vote. It's important. If you don't vote for the person you believe in, it's wasted. Disclaimer: This opinion may not apply within the state of Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 It's still early in the New Hampshire primary count, but the news channels are projecting McCain as the winner at 37%, with Romney in 2nd at 28% and Huckabee at 12%. It's still too close to call for the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Finally, some good news, I am not going to vote for McCain, but I could live through of another 4 years of a Republican controlled White House with him at the helm. I believe the Democrats are going to implode in their can’t loose scenario. I don’t care, I will vote for whichever win the party nomination anyway. Bush cured me of voting Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 I don't care if they're Republican, Democrat, or independent. If I think they're the best one for the job, they get my vote. I'll admit I held my nose as I hit the voting lever in '04, however--I didn't like any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MdKnightR Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'll be voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write his name in come November. That is unless the Libertarian Party fronts a good candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I was really hoping that Hillary would come in third again so that we could be done with her, but it looks as though her campaign will be reinvigorated after all. On the bright side, her win in NH was by a significantly smaller margin that Obama's win in Iowa. Hopefully that is a prelude to a lot more defeats for her in the not-too-distant future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 I think she'll have a tough time in SC--Obama and Edwards both have a lot of support there. A McCain win in NH after a virtually dead campaign last summer is quite a surprise--I prefer him as a candidate over Huckabee and Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 He was counting on the fact that he did very well there the last time he ran. Apparently it worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.