Which Candidate Is Better For Your Spouse's/Fiancee's Country?

[Blues Fairy 0]

Given the corrupt nature of the current government in Russia, I think in the long run, Russia would benefit more from a hard-liner that does NOT have the best interest of the current Russian political establishment at heart. Reagan with his "Evil Empire" doctrine did more good to Russia, objectively, than all the hand-shaking and eye-making guys who came after.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Blues Fairy

[slim 1,523]

Most of Russians in Russia are all pro Obama,

here alot are pro McCain...

There's a lot to be said about the above statement.

Given the corrupt nature of the current government in Russia, I think in the long run, Russia would benefit more from a hard-liner that does NOT have the best interest of the current Russian political establishment at heart. Reagan with his "Evil Empire" doctrine did more good to Russia, objectively, than all the hand-shaking and eye-making guys who came after.

Very good point. What makes the U.S. strong makes the world strong.

For those still undecided or "on the fence" please help make Sarah Palin the VP. Not because she'd be the best at the job but because the YouTube video that follows her "fact-finding mission" to Ukraine, you know, the one where she gets all tipsy in the hot tub with Yulia Tymoshenko, because that is the best reason to vote. Sorry mox, liked your pro-voting video, but wait'll you see the uncensored director's cut of the Palin/Tymoshenko hot tub video!

[akdiver 3]

Drop the electoral college

A lot of people think this - and it is flawed thinking. The EC is the only thing that keeps the most populous 5 or 6 states from dominating the entire country. People don't realize this, or think about it this way because they forget that the country was set up as, and is SUPPOSED TO BE RUN AS a REPUBLIC, of equal and sovereign states. From that perspective, the EC allows the "small states" as entities unto themselves to have some representation, in addition to giving people as individuals some representation. If the EC ever gets abolished and we go to just a pure popular vote, then the small states are just screwed. Of course, if it were up to me, I would still completely change how the EC works. Among other things, I would give the governor of each state a vote in the EC.

I agree with about getting on the ballots though. Anyone and everyone who wants on the ballot and pays a $1000 "anti-nuisance fee" should be able to get on.

Edited November 4, 2008 by akdiver

[mox 298]

Sorry mox, liked your pro-voting video, but wait'll you see the uncensored director's cut of the Palin/Tymoshenko hot tub video!

You make a point that's very hard to argue against.

Drop the electoral college

A lot of people think this - and it is flawed thinking. The EC is the only thing that keeps the most populous 5 or 6 states from dominating the entire country. People don't realize this, or think about it this way because they forget that the country was set up as, and is SUPPOSED TO BE RUN AS a REPUBLIC, of equal and sovereign states. From that perspective, the EC allows the "small states" as entities unto themselves to have some representation, in addition to giving people as individuals some representation. If the EC ever gets abolished and we go to just a pure popular vote, then the small states are just screwed.

Absolutely. The strong federal government we have now is not at all what the founders envisioned. Each State should have a lot more control over their individual governance, and should have more power over the federal government than the other way around. The current situation where the federal government dictates to the states is completely back-aswards from what was intended. The federal government was set up for common defense and trade, and very little else.

As akdiver says, little states would lose all power under a common vote. California would basically dictate the outcome of federal elections. Great for me, Satellite, and a few others here, but probably not what anyone else would want.

I'm not sure I like this idea about handing an electoral vote to the governors. Seems like it would be way too easy to abuse. 50 electoral votes is a helluva lot of votes, roughly 20% of what is currently needed to win. In a very close election I could see back-room deals being cut with individual governors like it was a Sotheby's Auction. I also don't like it for the same reason I don't like the "super delegate" mechanism in the Democratic Party. It just smacks of elitism.

Edited November 4, 2008 by mox

[Blues Fairy 0]

It would also be nice to devise a way to weigh people's votes proportionately to the amount of taxes they pay.

[MargotDarko 0]

It would also be nice to devise a way to weigh people's votes proportionately to the amount of taxes they pay.

Seriously? That idea is really upsetting to me.

[eekee 182]

It would also be nice to devise a way to weigh people's votes proportionately to the amount of taxes they pay.

You can't be serious.

[slim 1,523]

Drop the electoral college

A lot of people think this - and it is flawed thinking. The EC is the only thing that keeps the most populous 5 or 6 states from dominating the entire country. People don't realize this, or think about it this way because they forget that the country was set up as, and is SUPPOSED TO BE RUN AS a REPUBLIC, of equal and sovereign states. From that perspective, the EC allows the "small states" as entities unto themselves to have some representation, in addition to giving people as individuals some representation. If the EC ever gets abolished and we go to just a pure popular vote, then the small states are just screwed.

Absolutely. The strong federal government we have now is not at all what the founders envisioned. Each State should have a lot more control over their individual governance, and should have more power over the federal government than the other way around. The current situation where the federal government dictates to the states is completely back-aswards from what was intended. The federal government was set up for common defense and trade, and very little else.

As akdiver says, little states would lose all power under a common vote. California would basically dictate the outcome of federal elections. Great for me, Satellite, and a few others here, but probably not what anyone else would want.

I'm not sure I like this idea about handing an electoral vote to the governors. Seems like it would be way too easy to abuse. 50 electoral votes is a helluva lot of votes, roughly 20% of what is currently needed to win. In a very close election I could see back-room deals being cut with individual governors like it was a Sotheby's Auction. I also don't like it for the same reason I don't like the "super delegate" mechanism in the Democratic Party. It just smacks of elitism.

Electoral college... very bad idea. That's a huge part of the reason I don't vote. I firmly believe the popular vote should dictate who the Pres is going to be. States/FED relationship changed a long, long, time ago and the electoral college has run it's course. As far as one state dominating over another... not necessarily because all the minority (party, not color) votes would be counted.

As for the governors getting a vote..... why don't we just give every elected official a vote then? Dog catcher for electoral college!

It would also be nice to devise a way to weigh people's votes proportionately to the amount of taxes they pay.

I don't know about having them weigh proportionally to the taxes they pay, but I am all for having a minimum required amount similar to what we have to go through with the K-1 stuff. There would be waivers, of course, (students, disabled, etc.) but it should definitely eliminate the vote of those already being supported by the government for no other reason than they like to sit at home and have kids.

I'm fully aware of the sacrifice our forefathers made and those who have fought and died for us to keep the right to vote.... but once again, what it is now is not what they set up and not what they shed blood to protect. I'm to the point now where I believe citizenship and voting should be earned and not a birthright for all Americans. We have so many people who take advantage of rights that it's cheapened what they are. It's time for us, as a nation, to restore what it means to have rights. Showing up on a Tuesday, one time every four years doesn't make you a patriot.

[Blues Fairy 0]

It would also be nice to devise a way to weigh people's votes proportionately to the amount of taxes they pay.

Seriously? That idea is really upsetting to me.

Of course I realize that it cannot be done; but somehow I find the reality where welfare folks get to vote rather upsetting, too. At some point, the share of welfare-supported population reaches a certain critical mass when socialists will ALWAYS win the elections.

[eekee 182]

It would also be nice to devise a way to weigh people's votes proportionately to the amount of taxes they pay.

Seriously? That idea is really upsetting to me.

Of course I realize that it cannot be done; but somehow I find the reality where welfare folks get to vote rather upsetting, too. At some point, the share of welfare-supported population reaches a certain critical mass when socialists will ALWAYS win the elections.

This smacks of "a black person are 3/5 of a person" to me and very bizarre paranoia. I think you need to consider what a democracy is before you make statements about how it should be run if you're so concerned about socialism.

[Blues Fairy 0]

Of course I realize that it cannot be done; but somehow I find the reality where welfare folks get to vote rather upsetting, too. At some point, the share of welfare-supported population reaches a certain critical mass when socialists will ALWAYS win the elections.

This smacks of "a black person are 3/5 of a person" to me and very bizarre paranoia. I think you need to consider what a democracy is before you make statements about how it should be run if you're so concerned about socialism.

Where did I mention black people, or maintain that non-taxpayer is less of a person?

All I said was, non-taxpayers will always vote for socialists who increase welfare, thus creating more non-taxpayers who will vote for socialists... et cetera.

For your information, in the original Athenian democracy franchise was quite limited (only male citizens could vote - women, slaves and non-citizens were excluded). Also those citizens who had dwelling close to the city walls were excluded from voting on issues of war, because they were considered to have personal interest in the decisions.

[eekee 182]

Of course I realize that it cannot be done; but somehow I find the reality where welfare folks get to vote rather upsetting, too. At some point, the share of welfare-supported population reaches a certain critical mass when socialists will ALWAYS win the elections.

This smacks of "a black person are 3/5 of a person" to me and very bizarre paranoia. I think you need to consider what a democracy is before you make statements about how it should be run if you're so concerned about socialism.

Where did I mention black people, or maintain that non-taxpayer is less of a person?

All I said was, non-taxpayers will always vote for socialists who increase welfare, thus creating more non-taxpayers who will vote for socialists... et cetera.

For your information, in the original Athenian democracy franchise was quite limited (only male citizens could vote - women, slaves and non-citizens were excluded). Also those citizens who had dwelling close to the city walls were excluded from voting on issues of war, because they were considered to have personal interest in the decisions.

I would hope that society has advanced since thousands of years ago. And giving wealthy people more value is no different from giving white people more value.

Not paying taxes is not synonymous with being on welfare, either. I don't have to pay taxes in the US and I have never even gone to public school.

[Blues Fairy 0]

giving wealthy people more value is no different from giving white people more value.

Strange logic. Who talks of value? I only said I find it discomforting that those who do not pay taxes and live off welfare get to decide who will be in power equally with those who will pay to support this group. But I can see how this simple thought can be twisted in every imaginable way.

[eekee 182]

giving wealthy people more value is no different from giving white people more value.

Strange logic. Who talks of value? I only said I find it discomforting that those who do not pay taxes and live off welfare get to decide who will be in power equally with those who will pay to support this group. But I can see how this simple thought can be twisted in every imaginable way.

As I said, I don't pay taxes, but I certainly don't live off welfare, nor ever used any government services outside of police/fire department/etc. Giving rich people more voting power is inherently against everything that America is, despite what the last eight years may have demonstrated to the contrary.

[mox 298]

Electoral college... very bad idea. That's a huge part of the reason I don't vote. I firmly believe the popular vote should dictate who the Pres is going to be. States/FED relationship changed a long, long, time ago and the electoral college has run it's course. As far as one state dominating over another... not necessarily because all the minority (party, not color) votes would be counted.

The electoral college is not a perfect solution, but a popular vote would be worse. There needs to be a mechanism in place that makes sure that states like Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, etc, are able to make their voices heard. A popular vote would be terrible for these states. Now, if we ever reach a point where the population is more or less divided evenly amongst the states, then yeah a popular vote would be best.

As for the governors getting a vote..... why don't we just give every elected official a vote then? Dog catcher for electoral college!

Or how about we just give every person an electoral vote! That would be aweso...wait. Never mind.

It would also be nice to devise a way to weigh people's votes proportionately to the amount of taxes they pay.

Seriously? That idea is really upsetting to me.

Of course I realize that it cannot be done; but somehow I find the reality where welfare folks get to vote rather upsetting, too. At some point, the share of welfare-supported population reaches a certain critical mass when socialists will ALWAYS win the elections.

So under this system the CEO of Exxon would have his vote counted more than a school teacher's. Britney Spears' vote would count more than a Fireman's. Bill Clinton's vote would count for more than your vote.

We have a system in this country where wealthy people's voices are heard more than poor people. It's called lobbyists. I think they're doing just fine the way it is.