Decision 2008

[Leprucky Cougar]

Originally Posted by Vodstok

Good luck on your political future, and if you ever try to pass legislation to ban any media (aside from anything exploiting kids). i'll push you down the stairs :D

Thanks. I'll make a note of that.

[ChronoGrl]

Originally Posted by Leprucky Cougar

Oh no no no no. I wasn't proposing "changing the age limit" of voting, just adding a clause to it. I think it is justifiable to set a precedent of a voting age for 18. However, in considering those with LATE BIRTHS whom still who turn 18 during that election, they as well I believe should be granted the opportunity to access that right. They shouldn't have to wait another four years. I'm not talking about those whom turn 18 the next year or year after. I'm talking about the people who are currently 18 (or are suppose to be) were born in 1990. I was born in 1990--December of 1990. So I'll too, be 18 then. My point is just because I don't turn the 18 until four weeks after the election shouldn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to vote; because I turned 18 in the ELECTION YEAR. My proposal, should I become a legislator is not to"change" the election "age limit," again it is to revise it. :) The Framers and fourfathers when constructing the constitution weren't thinking in the best interest of
20th and 21st century scenarios. That's why we have so many cases testified in Supreme Court to verify the constitutionality of the predicaments. :eek: They weren't cognizant that sometimes rules can't be generalized because some things are a case by case basis. :) My proposal would allow any one whom functionally turns 18 in that election year will be able to cast their votes.

Oh, I understand. I was just making the point that if one were to write a letter to Obama to make a significant legislative change, there are more serious issues one could address.

Just joking. But anyway.

Originally Posted by Leprucky Cougar

As for the way an election works in our country, I don't exactly agree with that. I believe it's a fundamental right, not just privledge to cast your vote. However, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college--especially the way it operates for the republican party. :(

...

People take me too seriously.

...

But anyway. If we're going to go back to the point of American suffrage, while I whole-heartedly enjoy making glib remarks about turning our democratic system into an oligarchy powered by the intellectually elite, the fact of the matter is, we already are powered by an elitist oligarchy (as you mentioned - the Electoral College). If the 2004 election taught us anything, it's that the vote of the individual does not count and our elections are truly dictated by the few.

So, really - What sort of difference would license-based voting make? ;)

[newb]

Palin's gotta show more cleavage...she does that and they get my vote.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

Oh, I understand. I was just making the point that if one were to write a letter to Obama to make a significant legislative change, there are more serious issues one could address.

Just joking. But anyway.




...

People take me too seriously.

...

But anyway. If we're going to go back to the point of American suffrage, while I whole-heartedly enjoy making glib remarks about turning our democratic system into an oligarchy powered by the intellectually elite, the fact of the matter is, we already are powered by an elitist oligarchy (as you mentioned - the Electoral College). If the 2004 election taught us anything, it's that the vote of the individual does not count and our elections are truly dictated by the few.

So, really - What sort of difference would license-based voting make? ;)

I see your point--in reference to my claim of the Electoral college. However in the 2004 campaign--it wasn't really an impact of "our votes didn't count." The 2004 was a horrible disaster in terms of the Voter Countout. The 18-30 group let Kerry down. Huge numbers of these groups didn't vote and when polled on reasons why results included: people "forgeting" voting day and times, "forgot or had issues" with absentee ballots, "didn't feel like it", "were sick", had "bad weather." Many celebs were pressuring young groups about voting and to their suprise it was all a dream. They didn't go out to the polls. Remember P. Diddy's infamous : "Vote or Die" campaign?

Suprisingly though, Bush got way more support from his party during re-election than before. He also got high voter turnout for the 65 and older age group. And besides young voters turning their backs on Kerry, he made a couple of futile, not so strategic moves. Much of what McCain is doing with Obama, Kerry talked alot about how he was a "war hero" and his "purple heart" (not that I'm questioning his patriotism--I commend any one who's in the armed forces), talked about how he was an Ivy grad (not that I'm dissing his intelligence--you'd have to be pretty smart to win congressional seat after congressional seat) but perhaps the biggest flaw was him "overbashing his opponent." In 2004, Kerry talked a lot about how "Bush screwed up" and his flaws, but we never really knew John Kerry's stance on anything. All we knew was that he said he "disagreed" with Bush's policies. There was no detail about his reform. Now though I reluctantly supported John Kerry because I am a democrat (and I tend to be partial to my party, I'll admit) my supporting of him was mostly because of his VP choice--I really like Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Kerry wasn't as "liberal" enough --for me, mostly conservative on a lot of things. And this wasn't really a direction the party wanted at the time. For any other political analysists out there, I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say another failure of the Kerry/Edwards ticket. During the 2004 election, just 2.5 years after the 9/11 attacks and 1 .5 years after invading Iraq--clearly with majority of Americans dissatisifaction, Democrats were definitely planning on using this as bait to set up a great campaign to recclain the White House. However, Democrats following the Clinton Adminstration were loosing their touch in terms of identity; there was no longer a defintive line between if you were on or not. Joe Lieberman (Connnecticut Senator) over the past 5-10 was wishy-washy in terms of party affiliations. He was a one point a democrat, then slightly swerved the republican direction. He now supports McCain and declares himself a liberal. Shortlly after him the democratic party spilt. You had your liberal and conservative democrats. Meanwhile, the republicans noticed this and although some of them jumped to the democratic side, many with the help of the "Maverick" John McCain (which I respect him for) led his party back in unity to support thier party and Bush as they sought to making especially foreign policy a big deal with the war--in an effort to defeat the democrats in the 2004 elections. And their strategy, combined with the poor voter turnout from the young groups made that a success.

Thankfully, in 2006 the democrats learned from their mistakes two years prior, united and even made history--where not only did they take Congress back, they inducted the first female as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (a Baltimore Native and democrat of California. Hopefully with this year's election they will continue--especially since they are starting to more clearly define the "direction" they want to go into. :)

[ChronoGrl]

Originally Posted by Leprucky Cougar

I see your point--in reference to my claim of the Electoral college. However in the 2004 campaign--it wasn't really an impact of "our votes didn't count." The 2004 was a horrible disaster in terms of the Voter Countout. The 18-30 group let Kerry down. Huge numbers of these groups didn't vote and when polled on reasons why results included: people "forgeting" voting day and times, "forgot or had issues" with absentee ballots, "didn't feel like it", "were sick", had "bad weather." Many celebs were pressuring young groups about voting and to their suprise it was all a dream. They didn't go out to the polls. Remember P. Diddy's infamous : "Vote or Die" campaign?

Suprisingly though, Bush got way more support from his party during re-election than before. He also got high voter turnout for the 65 and older age group. And besides young voters turning their backs on Kerry, he made a couple of futile, not so strategic moves. Much of what McCain is doing with Obama, Kerry talked alot about how he was a "war hero" and his "purple heart" (not that I'm questioning his patriotism--I commend any one who's in the armed forces), talked about how he was an Ivy grad (not that I'm dissing his intelligence--you'd have to be pretty smart to win congressional seat after congressional seat) but perhaps the biggest flaw was him "overbashing his opponent." In 2004, Kerry talked a lot about how "Bush screwed up" and his flaws, but we never really knew John Kerry's stance on anything. All we knew was that he said he "disagreed" with Bush's policies. There was no detail about his reform. Now though I reluctantly supported John Kerry because I am a democrat (and I tend to be partial to my party, I'll admit) my supporting of him was mostly because of his VP choice--I really like Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Kerry wasn't as "liberal" enough --for me, mostly conservative on a lot of things. And this wasn't really a direction the party wanted at the time. For any other political analysists out there, I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say another failure of the Kerry/Edwards ticket. During the 2004 election, just 2.5 years after the 9/11 attacks and 1 .5 years after invading Iraq--clearly with majority of Americans dissatisifaction, Democrats were definitely planning on using this as bait to set up a great campaign to recclain the White House. However, Democrats following the Clinton Adminstration were loosing their touch in terms of identity; there was no longer a defintive line between if you were on or not. Joe Lieberman (Connnecticut Senator) over the past 5-10 was wishy-washy in terms of party affiliations. He was a one point a democrat, then slightly swerved the republican direction. He now supports McCain and declares himself a liberal. Shortlly after him the democratic party spilt. You had your liberal and conservative democrats. Meanwhile, the republicans noticed this and although some of them jumped to the democratic side, many with the help of the "Maverick" John McCain (which I respect him for) led his party back in unity to support thier party and Bush as they sought to making especially foreign policy a big deal with the war--in an effort to defeat the democrats in the 2004 elections. And their strategy, combined with the poor voter turnout from the young groups made that a success.

Thankfully, in 2006 the democrats learned from their mistakes two years prior, united and even made history--where not only did they take Congress back, they inducted the first female as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (a Baltimore Native and democrat of California. Hopefully with this year's election they will continue--especially since they are starting to more clearly define the "direction" they want to go into. :)

Mea culpa. I actually meant the 2000 Election in terms of the disenfranchised voter, not the 2004 Election.

Of the many issues that lead to the Democrats losing in 2004, disenfranchisement wasn't one of the major ones.

To that topic, though, I think the statement "the 18-30 group let Kerry down" is an incredible oversimplification and an oversight of the bigger issues at hand at the time - Quite frankly, John Kerry wasn't a particularly strong candidate for office. Take that weakness coupled with the fact that the Democrats had been essentially made impotent by the aftermath of 9/11 and the incredibly well-implemented spin campaign generated by the Bush administration - The Democrats were essentially fighting a losing battle.

But that was 2004.

Disenfranchisement was 2000.

But, regardless, the individual is still disenfranchised by the electoral college system. I'd like to believe that there truly is One Person, One Vote, but that simply isn't the case. And, in fact, that's intentional. The electoral college was built as a system of governmental checks and balances over the masses.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

Mea culpa. I actually meant the 2000 Election in terms of the disenfranchised voter, not the 2004 Election.

Of the many issues that lead to the Democrats losing in 2004, disenfranchisement wasn't one of the major ones.

To that topic, though, I think the statement "the 18-30 group let Kerry down" is an incredible oversimplification and an oversight of the bigger issues at hand at the time - Quite frankly, John Kerry wasn't a particularly strong candidate for office. Take that weakness coupled with the fact that the Democrats had been essentially made impotent by the aftermath of 9/11 and the incredibly well-implemented spin campaign generated by the Bush administration - The Democrats were essentially fighting a losing battle.

But that was 2004.

Disenfranchisement was 2000.

But, regardless, the individual is still disenfranchised by the electoral college system. I'd like to believe that there truly is One Person, One Vote, but that simply isn't the case. And, in fact, that's intentional. The electoral college was built as a system of governmental checks and balances over the masses.

The one person, one vote thing is applicable to the House however. When we vote for HOR-we elect them directly--it's solely population vote. And I'm certainly not saying the "oversimplication of the JK let down" was the pinnacle of it all...not by a long shot. I was just saying this + the lack of democratic unity & repulican's winning a lot of people over with the post 9/11 events as you and I both reference.

[ChronoGrl]

Originally Posted by Leprucky Cougar

The one person, one vote thing is applicable to the House however. When we vote for HOR-we elect them directly--it's solely population vote. And I'm certainly not saying the "oversimplication of the JK let down" was the pinnacle of it all...not by a long shot. I was just saying this + the lack of democratic unity & repulican's winning a lot of people over with the post 9/11 events as you and I both reference.

See, you're significantly more diplomatic and sympathetic than I am.

I consider the Liberal Left to be a bunch of pussies and I'm embarrassed to identify myself as one sometimes.

[Leprucky Cougar]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

See, you're significantly more diplomatic and sympathetic than I am.

I consider the Liberal Left to be a bunch of pussies and I'm embarrassed to identify myself as one sometimes.

Yeah---I try to be as diplomatic and sympathetic as much as I can.

And I understand your point. I have plenty of freinds whom were liberal but decided the association with liberals and democrats shouldn't be in the same category. So they decided to identify themselves as radicals. They understand that liberal logic is usually with democrats but people like Carter, Kerry and a few others weren't "liberal" enough...not for the new more modern visions America is in, and on the verge of going.

But in the end, we should, I think try to find a lesser of two evils. It gets hard though to show you "libby" colors if your a dem prez that the Gop is the opposite party. So compromisng so much when Congress is in session, could make you appear to being "soft" or as you like to say "a pussy". See what I mean?