- Impact
- 61,246
Would like to know your opinion on this choice.
Do you think it was a smart, wise, bold, stupid or don't give a damn choice?
Do you think it was a smart, wise, bold, stupid or don't give a damn choice?
.X. said:She is Hot!
Good move? I am not convinced of that yet
Condo Rice from a political stand point, would have been a great choice, and she could run the US if needed, no problem at all.
:bingo:homebuyer said:Quite frankly, this election reminds me of two seniors running for high school class president - with each one is trying to get one up on the other using anything cute, clever, popular or cool.
Presidents don't need to know everything because they are surounded by dozens of advisers and speach writers who do most of the thinking for them. In most cases all they need to do is say yes or no. Bush is a classic example of someone who is not very proficient in the English language, who doesn't know the names of many important world leaders, who just 3-4 months ago did not believe there was $4.00 a gallon gas in the US, and who only seems to talk about "the war on terror" just to name a few examplesnstalk said:Palin is an unknown with almost zero knowledge of world politics...or even country politics for that matter yet McCain chooses her to be the one to lead the most powerful country in the world if he dies in office....which is very likely should he be elected.
I can only conclude this is a choice of a senile old man who has all but given up any hope of winning. Before this is over he will suffer the biggest lost in republican history and be the laughing stock of his party.....its really sad in my opinion.
GILSAN said:Did he write all his speaches? Did he make all the decisions by himself? Does he know that much on foreign policy? Yet the American people voted for him for 8 years! Amazing. Here in Europe hardly anyone comprehends how he was voted twice into office.
Idees said:That idiot barely won his elections, so your statement that the "American people" voted in Biush is completely incorrect.
2000 election: Popular vote (Bush) 50,456,002 (Gore) 50,999,897
2004 Election: Popular vote (Bush) 62,040,610 (Kerry) 59,028,444
That means over 100 million people did not want Bush to be president for 8 years.
Idees said:That means over 100 million people did not want Bush to be president for 8 years.
Thats amazing that Bush won in 2000 with less votes. That is something that should be changed IMO, but I don't seem to recall much interest in changing that except right after the 2000 vote recount in Florida if I'm not wrong.Idees said:2000 election: Popular vote (Bush) 50,456,002 (Gore) 50,999,897
2004 Election: Popular vote (Bush) 62,040,610 (Kerry) 59,028,444
GILSAN said:Thats amazing that Bush won in 2000 with less votes. That is something that should be changed IMO, but I don't seem to recall much interest in changing that except right after the 2000 vote recount in Florida if I'm not wrong.
The best and fairest way to count votes, is and allways will be 50% plus 1 vote for the winner
Proportional electoral votes sounds like a much fairer system to me and would probably avoid a repeat of the 2000 election fiasco, where the loser is the winner.GF said:The Electoral College system is unfair, in my opinion.
If we allotted electoral votes proportionally instead of a "winner-take-all," it would force candidates to compete everywhere for as many electoral votes as possible. :D
It's setup to use electoral votes to be fair to smaller states. Similar to the way congress numbers are determined.GILSAN said:Why not go for simple straight forward popular votes from the whole country.
I like your idea of distributing electoral votes proportionally. Would this have affected the result of the last few elections?GF said:In my opinion, this doesn't convey the actual "will of the people." It would be more accurate to breakdown the electoral votes by Congressional district, and to allot the Senatorial votes to the candidate who wins the largest percentage of overall votes, or something similar to that.
If we allotted electoral votes proportionally instead of a "winner-take-all," it would force candidates to compete everywhere for as many electoral votes as possible.
homebuyer said:I believe that McCain's Short List read:
1. Obama
2. Hillary
3. Palin
4. Guy who sold me 7 houses
5. Bush