Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Now that you bring it up... The electoral college is a bit of an anachronism. Don't you think we would be better off without it?

The only way it will be gotten rid of is if the very States it protects(the small ones) all of the sudden decide they don't need that protection anymore.


Back in 2002 there was a bit of a push to start the process, thru State iniatives, to weaken the electoral system with the end goal eventual elimination. Most Dems, reeling from Florida 2000, and many Republicans from the bigger states were for its elimination.

Democrat Bill Richardson((the only Dem running that I would happily cast my vote for)) fought against it......and won.

Richardson, using the formula of cutting taxes to ballance the budget has done just that in New Mexico.

I won't have a say in who becomes the Democrats eventual nominee.....but I can tell you one thing; Fiscal Conservative Republicans are pretty fed up with their leadership right now and would love to come over to the dark side and vote for this guy.....Dems would Win back the White House if they nominated him.

[Not Afraid]

Kerry bows out.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Kerry bows out.

From NA's link

The Republican field has a similar number with Bush constitutionally barred from seeking a third term.

I think that's a blessing for everyone including the President himself

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

I think you mean "madrassa".

If you do, that rumor, started by Insight Magazine, an organ of the same crazy bunch that runs the Washington Times, was debunked. That will not stop the republicans from trying to make it an issue in the dem primaries, so you are at least partially right.

If you're talking about the fabric, carry on.

According to Insight it was the Clinton campaign who dug up the info- so WHO is making an issue of it?

Yeah- not the republicans.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

According to Insight it was the Clinton campaign who dug up the info- so WHO is making an issue of it?

Yeah- not the republicans.

Even if that were true, and I highly doubt it is, why did Insight not do any fact checking before running with this false story? Is that the type of journalistic integrity we should always expect from them?

Then again, we are talking about a publication in which the owner considers himself to be the messiah.

Oh, and yes the republicans are making an issue of it. The right wing Fox News and their pundits ran with the story without doing any fact checking of their own. Wasn't this the same complaint that the right had with the CBS story about Bush's military service? Is it only wrong if CBS does it?

[Nephythys]

Here ya go-

Fox News picked up the Insight charge on two of its programs, playing up an angle involving Hillary Clinton. The magazine, citing only unnamed sources, said that researchers "connected" to the New York senator were allegedly spreading the information about her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Link

Of course I am well aware- having read it- that the Clinton campaign denies it.

And everyone knows they never lie.

Right?

I am also aware that any conversation of which media sources we trust- or who we consider truthful is a total waste of time.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Is it only wrong if CBS does it?

If CBS does it....

Only wrong....no.

Probably wrong....yes

[BarTopDancer]

OK, I must be missing something huge here because I cannot see how getting rid of the electoral college and allowing the true majority winner to win is a bad thing.

All it means is that if people want x person to be president they need to go out and vote. How is that a bad thing? How will that equate to only the east and the west really getting a say? If every single person in this country [of voting age] has their vote counted then how is that a bad thing?

Alex?

[Nephythys]

Because the majority is centered in certain regions- and the people in the less populated states would be railroaded.

Alex will certainly answer it better- but there is a REASON we are a representative republic and NOT a democracy. It protects people's interest.

Funny how the founders seemed to know what we needed.

[Nephythys]

republic: "a form of government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."
Websters Unabridged Dictionary
democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

U.S. Army Training Manual

Our Republic was founded upon the principles of Liberty (the right to do whatever one wishes so long as those actions do not infringe upon the equal rights of others) and limited government, not democracy. In fact, seldom if ever will one see reference to democracy in the founding documents of our nation, at least in a positive context. Peculiar, don't you think if we are suppose to live in a democracy as our politicians tell us?

Chapter 3 of The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson:
"It is generally conceded that even a monarchy or a dictatorship is an oligarchy, or a government run by a small, ruling minority."
"Such is also the case with a democracy, for this form of government is traditionally controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy. The people in a democracy are conditioned to believe that they are indeed the decision-making power of government, but in truth there is almost always a small circle at the top making the decisions for the entirety."

In the Republican form of government, the power rests in a written Constitution, wherein the powers of our government is limited so that the people retain the maximum amount of power themselves. In addition to limiting the power of government, care is also taken to limit the power of the people to restrict the rights of both the majority and the minority.

Alexander Hamilton was aware of this tendency of a democratic form of government to be torn apart by itself, and he has been quoted as writing:
"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

James Madison who wrote:
"In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!"


Another was John Adams who wrote:
"Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in a monarchy."

a British professor named Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

Fisher Ames stated: 'Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it
ever ended in anything better than despotism.'

Samuel Adams stated: 'Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes itself,
exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not
commit suicide.'

As Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he was
asked by an onlooker what form of government he and his countrymen had created
during the first and to date, only constitutional convention. His answer: 'A
Republic, if you can keep it.'


Links-
Link
Link

It seems ironic that those who protest what they preceive as a loss of rights (which has not happened) seem all too happy to strip people of their right to representation because a couple elections don't turn out how they want them to.