Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election is...

[RyuuKage]

blagh, too much stuff so i'll focus on the only one that matters to me atm (being stuck in California: immigration).

 

There's a difference between open borders and secure borders. The quote you made regards LEGAL immigration. My problem is ILLEGAL immigration. I'm not saying don't let anybody in; i'm saying don't let them come in without us knowing, and meeting our standards for immigration. If you have no border, you have no country.

 

and nobody is uniting anyone in Washington, lol

[Achilles]

blagh, too much stuff so i'll focus on the only one that matters to me atm (being stuck in California: immigration).

Hopefully you'll forgive me if I take that as "I don't have any example of freedoms I'm concerned about losing"

 

There's a difference between open borders and secure borders. The quote you made regards LEGAL immigration. My problem is ILLEGAL immigration. I'm not saying don't let anybody in; i'm saying don't let them come in without us knowing, and meeting our standards for immigration. If you have no border, you have no country.

Oddly I don't think they had such a distinction when the Statue of Liberty was assembled.

 

Since it sounds as though you're retracting your earlier statement, I'll let the matter drop.

 

and nobody is uniting anyone in Washington, lol

So the best course of action is to continue the path that we're on? Please explain.

[mimartin]

Rather in the name of social welfare. [/Quote] Last I checked that did not happen under Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Why would it happen under Obama? Last I checked we had three branches of government that provide checks and balances and a Constitution that limits any one branch of government’s power. Oh, wait never mind I was in my happy place and forgot about the last 8 years.

Instead shredding it to form the Nanny state.[/Quote] Wow, I did not see that as part of the Obama platform. I actually believe we are in need of Nanny state now. Something about not taking person responsibly by pushing our debt onto future generations makes me look at this country as a bunch of children in need of a good nanny.

 

Or foist dem partisanship upon us instead of rep.[/Quote] Yes, the democrats are just as much to blame for the partisanship. I would not see things getting better under Hillary Clinton, but Obama has said he will work with the Republican. I just giving him the benefit of the doubt, the same courtesy I gave Bush 8 years ago when I voted for him for the same reason. That worked out well.

to taking orders from them[/Quote] When have we ever taken orders from our allies. Even in WWII, under a democrat, we did not take orders from our allies, but we did work with them to a pretty successful conclusion.

[Achilles]

Yes, the democrats are just as much to blame for the partisanship. I would not see things getting better under Hillary Clinton, but Obama has said he will work with the Republican.

Yep and considering his track record of doing precisely that, I'd be inclined to think that it isn't empty rhetoric.

[mimartin]

Yep and considering his track record of doing precisely that, I'd be inclined to think that it isn't empty rhetoric.

Well the fact that Obama is already in Washington gives me hope. Bush had a good record of working with Democrats in the Texas House and Senate, but failed miserably once he got to Washington. In fairness is it really a failure when you don’t even try? Also might have something to do with most Texas Democrats in office are pretty conservative.

[El Sitherino]

A "Nanny-state" is never a good thing. Teach people personal responsibility, don't set up some barriers to protect people from their own idiocy.

 

The biggest problem with the nation today is that no one actively thinks. The fact that I can say "Critical thinking" and people look at me confused is a sign that things are a bit wrong.

[Achilles]

Teach people personal responsibility

Who needs to do this? The government? If so, how is that not "a nanny-state"?

 

Maybe you're suggesting a "tough-love" approach, but I would argue that that's still a nanny-state.

 

I'm all for a participative democracy comprised of educated citizens, but it seems that not very many others are interested.

[PoiuyWired]

"A waste of time, because nothing will really change if we vote"

 

Whoever vote for this option should really think again, really.

[Arcesious]

I want to beleive that something will change if I vote (come 2012) but I honestly can't beleive that until all this government idiocy ends.

[Achilles]

I want to beleive that something will change if I vote (come 2012) but I honestly can't beleive that until all this government idiocy ends.

The idiocy won't end until enough voters decide that they've had enough. So long as the masses stay home on election night, those with enough ambition to organize will control the agenda. The political process is not going to fix itself.

[Arcesious]

Yeah, sad thing is, that probably won't happen anytime soon, hence what I just said...

If worse comes to worse, it's not like we're in any position to force a change in the government, unless if we can sway the loyalty of the military and those who guard and carry out the orders of those in command... But I doubt it's that bad. Still, I don't trust anyone in the government, and I doubt my single vote counts for anything, what with superdelegates, electoral college, and the presidential capability to enforce martial law. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I've had enough. If the majority has, I don't know, but the majority seems to be pretty gullible...

[ForeverNight]

It's the bane of all democracies, Mob Rule.

 

My friend and I get in huge debates about the electoral college (And, I always wish I had a tape-recorder on hand when they start!), he's always saying that its wrong, because it means that you could lose the popular vote, but win the election nevertheless.

 

Case in point: George W. Bush.

 

My rebuttal to this, however, is that the popular perception is going to be almost always formed by the mass media, which is no longer center, but left of center. (Debate for another time) And, since most people get their perceptions from this, it means that the mass media will do their best to get who they want in office. Usually through slandering the person of the opposite party, or the incumbent who they hate.

 

Case in point: George W. Bush.

 

But, anyway, the way I see it, any vote still matters! The superdelegates/delegates only matter in the primaries (and I've met two people who are dem's who support Hillary, and since most of the people I know are dem's (I live in Minnesota, can't help it!) that suggests that few like her.) so I don't see how the issue of those fit in...

 

Presidential Capability to Enforce Martial Law... if I recall the Constitution properly, that requires a vote in the... House? (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!) But, if any president did that because he wanted his party to stay in power/he wanted power, than I have a feeling that there would be a revolution!

 

Also, I also believe that it is not possible under most circumstances to get rid of most parts of the constitution... but I haven't read it in the past year, so I might be wrong.

 

So, basically what I've been trying to say throughout this muddled mess of a post, is that your vote still counts, even with the Electoral College.

[Achilles]

My rebuttal to this, however, is that the popular perception is going to be almost always formed by the mass media, which is no longer center, but left of center. (Debate for another time) And, since most people get their perceptions from this, it means that the mass media will do their best to get who they want in office. Usually through slandering the person of the opposite party, or the incumbent who they hate.

 

Premise 1 - Perception is controlled by the media

Premise 2 - The media "leans to the left" (i.e. is liberal)

Conclusion - The media exerts liberal influence on elections.

 

If this is true, then please explain the results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections?

 

Presidential Capability to Enforce Martial Law... if I recall the Constitution properly, that requires a vote in the... House? (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!) But, if any president did that because he wanted his party to stay in power/he wanted power, than I have a feeling that there would be a revolution!

Bush signed an amendment to the Insurrection Act in 2006 that would have circumvented this, however those powers were repealed earlier this year.

 

Also, I also believe that it is not possible under most circumstances to get rid of most parts of the constitution... but I haven't read it in the past year, so I might be wrong.

Military Commissions Act got rid of the 5th and 6th amendments. Patriot Act has done away with the 4th.

[ForeverNight]

Thank you for correcting me on those two points, like I said, I might be wrong.

 

Premise 1 - Perception is controlled by the media

Premise 2 - The media "leans to the left" (i.e. is liberal)

Conclusion - The media exerts liberal influence on elections.

 

If this is true, then please explain the results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections?[/Quote]

 

Alright, in a nutshell, we are not a true democracy. Bush lost the popular vote in, at least the 2000 election if I recall correctly, I think it might have been both.

 

Yes, I could have used better wording when talking about people forming their perceptions, but, it still comes across.

 

~~~

Wow, just re-read my post, very disjointed.

 

So, in order to clarify what I said earlier, the Mass Media is going to be a large part of the formation of anybody's opinion. That is a given, after all, we trust the media to report the news as it is, right?

 

So, if the media put their spin on it either way (Left or Right) then that will largely form the people who watch it unthinkingly, (Far too many of those people today it seems), and then that will become the opinion of the people, probably a majority of the people.

 

Then, coupled with a true democracy, that would sway the vote to the candidate that most closely comes into accord with the Mass Media's views. That is my argument for why the Electoral College is a necessary evil, not a spiel on the Media controlling our entire way of thought, I'm sorry if it looked that way.

 

Hope this helps with my disjointed post.

 

Edit: Decided to look up the Military Commissions act, the first non-lobbyist group I could find about it is wiki... Wiki, Military Commissions Act

 

Looking over it, I don't see how it violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendment... Please, do explain this, probably best in a PM or different thread. I'm curious.

[Achilles]

Thank you for correcting me on those two points, like I said, I might be wrong.

I wouldn't consider it a "correction" (since you admitted that you were unsure), but I'm glad I could help.

 

Alright, in a nutshell, we are not a true democracy. Bush lost the popular vote in, at least the 2000 election if I recall correctly, I think it might have been both.

You're correct, it was the 2000 election that you're thinking of. Even if I were to concede on this point, I'm afraid you're still left to explain the 2004 election.

 

So, if the media put their spin on it either way (Left or Right) then that will largely form the people who watch it unthinkingly, (Far too many of those people today it seems), and then that will become the opinion of the people, probably a majority of the people.

I'm inclined to agree with this, however this still doesn't explain the elections if the media has a liberal bias. Acknowledging that there is a conservative bias (or at the very least least acknowledging that media sources that have a conservative bias have gained in popularity) might explain it though.

 

If you're really interested in learning more about the debate, I'd recommend reading this as well as whatever book one of our resident right-wing contributors recommends as a rebuttal to my recommendation and then making up your own mind.

 

Then, coupled with a true democracy, that would sway the vote to the candidate that most closely comes into accord with the Mass Media's views. That is my argument for why the Electoral College is a necessary evil, not a spiel on the Media controlling our entire way of thought, I'm sorry if it looked that way.

I don't disagree with your thinking. I question one of your premises and therefore your conclusion, but your thinking itself seems sound.

 

Edit: Decided to look up the Military Commissions act, the first non-lobbyist group I could find about it is wiki... Wiki, Military Commissions Act

 

Looking over it, I don't see how it violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendment... Please, do explain this, probably best in a PM or different thread. I'm curious.

If you read the act itself, you'll notice that habeas corpus has been suspended. Either the President or the Secretary of Defense can decide that you are an enemy combatant and then have you shipped to Gitmo (or it's equivalent) for as long as they would like without due process or any of the other rights previously guaranteed under the 4th and 5th amendments. If you need help finding the document or want to discuss the implications further, please feel free to PM me anytime.

 

I hope that helps.

[ForeverNight]

Yeah... I already have a book picked out for the Right perspective (Bias, can't remember the author), so this should make a good balance for it. Thanks!

 

Oh, and it does help.

[Achilles]

Yeah... I already have a book picked out for the Right perspective (Bias, can't remember the author), so this should make a good balance for it. Thanks!

Hehe, Alterman discusses Bias (the author's name is Goldberg, FWIW) in his book. So that should be a real treat for you

 

Oh, and it does help.

Great to hear it. Take care.