McCain guarantees victory

[Kramer]

totally agree with Zan's comment...

"YOU SHOULD VOTE!*

*as long as it's for my candidate

though, i would have considered voting for Obama if i was in a swing state, i probably would have just voted my conscience, which is Libertarian.... what a novel idea

[Tossica]

You know what's most infuriating about this election? The "retardlicans" that I've talked to about it seriously have NO FUCKING CLUE what they are talking about. Every single one of them parrots conservative talking points. "redistribution of wealth", "he's a terrorist", "he's gonna raise taxes on my $8hr job!". Not a single one can tell me what McCain is going to do for them or what policies of his they agree with or even coherently verbalize ANY of his policies. All they know is what the "think" they don't like about Obama.

FUCKING RETARDS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON EITHER SIDE!

[araby]

FUCKING RETARDS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON EITHER SIDE!

That's what the electoral college is for, essentially.

[Tikker]

FUCKING RETARDS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON EITHER SIDE!

That's what the electoral college is for, essentially.

um, what

[Naethyn]

A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment.

[brinstar]

My friends who are Obama supporters are FREAKING out that I won't vote for him. They say, "why would you vote third party and waste your vote?"

I agree with you completely, Araby. I "wasted my vote" in the last Canadian election and I heard from a lot of people that I should just vote for so and so. It really bothered me that a certain candidate deserves my vote just because he's the lesser of two evils. If I don't feel they best represent my political ideology they don't deserve my vote, period.

This whole throwing your vote away silliness is just stupid. If people lose an election because of the small amount of independent votes, maybe they should modify their campaigns to represent those people rather then bitch about it. It's the one thing that really pissed me off about Gore.

ya i vote this way every time, fuck tha haterz

[ClakarEQ]

Nate, instead of only posting a quote that may or may not have anything to do with the discussion, since that quote is about maintaining power in the GOV and EC, essentially taking power away from you and I, why don't you put into words, your own words, why you're posting that quote.

If I try to understand your intent, it is to accept or somehow voice your favor for the EC, and again so we're clear, the EC greatly favors Obama in this election. So yet again, doing the work that the founding fathers intended.

It could also mean that our votes in essence are worthless, and unfortunately that is a fact. Anyone not voting for one of two parties unfortunately is a wasted vote. The EC would never, and I'd go so far to say, in many lifetimes from now, vote outside the two party system. So again, those that vote their mind, don't bother voting.

Was that your point or did I miss it completely?

[Lueyen]

Lueyen, you realize that the 3 judges that are likely to retire are already on the liberal side of things? Any judges Obama appoints are likely to leave things exactly as they are now. Any judges McCain would appoint are going to tip the scales overwhelming to the conservative side. Right now you have 4 liberal leaning , 4 conservative leaning and one that could go either way, but in most major decisions since Roberts took over, he has gone conservative. Replace 3 liberal judges with 3 conservative judges and good bye fair and balanced. No thanks.

As long as you have strict constructionist who stay true to that conviction, instead of activist judge you don't need a political balance. Unfortunately Obama is not a strict constructionist nor is he likely to appoint someone who is. To the contrary he believes the constitution should be interpreted in light of today society regardless of the intent of the founding fathers, and any judicial nominations will reflect that. We have a built in process for accomplishing such aims, but it is not in the hands of a select few judges, but in that of amendments.

Tell me how in 4 years, keep in mind 4 years is a very short time frame to get half of what he wants done and a lot of his objectives have 8+ years, so how in 4 years could he even remotely come close the fuck-ups of Pres. Bush.

Any SCOTUS appointments he makes will have ramifications well beyond 4 years.

IMO, a minority of folks are worried about this. If it were a majority, then he will lose, so if you are not on the winning team, then know democracy has done its job.

I suspect that a majority of people who see his general goals as ultimately being detrimental to this country worry about this in particular. It may very well be the case that those people are in the minority overall. I was however attempting to answer your question pointing out that 4 years have ramifications beyond 4 years, and SCOTUS appointments are probably the most tangible example of the longer term affect any presidential term can have.

Leu, look at the current lineup all but 2 were put in by republicans (if I got my info correct). Here we are "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" give me a break.

As I hinted at above my views regarding SCOTUS appointments are less about conservative vs liberal or Democrat vs Republican. I don't think either side of the political arena can lay sole claim to either strict constructionist or judicial activism as there are examples of both on both sides.

And btw, you know that regardless of party affiliation, these folks are to do right by the constitution

That's how I believe it should be, that is not how it works in the minds of those who see a living breathing document however.

you also know that Obama is a lawyer who's foundation is constitutional law / interpretation (or whatever the technical name is for it). I think the man is pretty educated when it comes to interpretations of the constitution and he has many kudos from both sides of the fence (no don't ask me for names because I suck at names, however I think it was just Friday they did a recap of a story regarding this on NPR, so you can search for it there).

I always want to roll my eyes when I see lawyer and constitutional interpretation in the same sentence (not taking a shot at you ClakarEQ, it's a common thing to see). One would almost think the constitution or other founding documents and transcripts were written in some cryptic legal mumbo jumbo that requires one have a law degree to hope to understand. The reality is that it's all in plain (if somewhat flowery and dated) English. Those who support judicial activism on both sides of the aisle will tend to be supportive of Obama's views in regards to the constitution.

[Haylo]

Sorry but it doesn't matter if Obama appoints the most liberal of judges or not. The balance of power is already leaning to the conservative side. You are a staunch conservative so i'm not surprised that you would prefer McCain appointees. If McCain wins, you have 7 conservative judges with a leaning 8th. Do you really think that they will vote solely on the constitution or will they judge as befits their conservative agenda?

[ClakarEQ]

Leu, my point to the Constitional lawyer was that he has many kudos from even some far right wing guys that he would be many times over a better president regarding the constition, what purpose it was to serve, etc, than mccain could ever dream of, and no, I didn't take your post as a shot, (but you may want to fix your quotes )

[Lueyen]

Sorry but it doesn't matter if Obama appoints the most liberal of judges or not. The balance of power is already leaning to the conservative side. You are a staunch conservative so i'm not surprised that you would prefer McCain appointees. If McCain wins, you have 7 conservative judges with a leaning 8th. Do you really think that they will vote solely on the constitution or will they judge as befits their conservative agenda?

John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

(sorry couldn't find an outright statement as I did with McCain's website, this came from a news article I found on his site)

Unless you view judicial activism (injecting one's politics into decisions irrespective of written law) as a strictly liberal ideology, then for me this is not a partisan conservative vs liberal issue. Yes I would prefer judges who rule on the law and not on their feelings, so yes McCain's notion on appointees is more favorable to me, but not because they would be conservative, but because there would be a much lower degree of subjectivity from an individual who sees it as their responsibility to hand down decisions based on the law vs decisions based on their own personal feelings on a matter.

[brinstar]

and what do you have to base that on?

why should anyone believe that mccain's picks would have any less subjectivity than obama's picks (even going so far as to grant that obama's WOULD be, just for the sake of argument)? because he says so? fuck that, lol

[ClakarEQ]

Leu, do you really believe any individual can be completely subjective though? You agreed with what should be is never what is regarding these judges. Each of them inject their opinion, that is what they're suppose to do, their opinion and interepation of the constitution, the laws, etc.

Is it because for your lifetime abortion would be legal?
Is it because you think that handguns could be banned?

Those two items seem to be the biggest hang ups for folks so that is why I posted them.

You can't say you don't have personal investment or you wouldn't have focused on SCOTUS as a primary concern.

Life experience shapes a person and how they interpret things, you know this, I don't see anything wrong with Obama's statement, I think we need more "today's" life experienced folks, that isn't to say I am at one with each judges life experience, but I don't think some of the ones on that bench right now should be there either.

Who was it that brought up the nuclear option as it was called, now the tables may turn, and I for one am happy to think it is possible for some liberal sided seats on SCOTUS

EDIT
BTW, I am not looking for an answer to my questions, those were just points, so please don't take it as an attack, I think this disucssion is good and don't want to go off base.

EDIT x2
People say this country was founded on religious beliefs, and that is a false assumption, I don't recall it mentioning God or religion in the constitution at all.

[Haylo]

John McCain was asked point blank during the last debate would he appoint a judge that disagreed with his beliefs re: Roe vs Wade. He danced all around the issue saying that he would appoint people who are qualified and not give litmus tests etc, but right before the question went to Obama he said that he believes that the most qualified person would be someone who did not support Roe v Wade.

[araby]

FUCKING RETARDS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON EITHER SIDE!

That's what the electoral college is for, essentially.

um, what

I was taking his statement of dumb voters and giving an example of why the electoral college is in place. I think Nat's quote was from an elector. I wasn't trying to be taken *very* seriously, but the electors are there to provide a bit of wisdom over a large body of voters.

[Kramer]

"wisdom"?

i guess if hitler is running you might want that.... that idea outrages me....

no reason a straight ballot count wouldn't work.

[Martrae]

Yes, there is. If you did straight vote then it skews everything to the most populated areas and leaves everyone else without a voice.

[Tossica]

Yes, there is. If you did straight vote then it skews everything to the most populated areas and leaves everyone else without a voice.

Move out of the sticks and start interacting with your fellow human beings and maybe your "voice" would be meaningful.

[Zanchief]

Yes, there is. If you did straight vote then it skews everything to the most populated areas and leaves everyone else without a voice.

That doesn't really make any sense. The higher populated areas should have a higher representation. Everyone's vote should be equal, otherwise certain people's "voice" is heard louder then others.

[Naethyn]

Yes, there is. If you did straight vote then it skews everything to the most populated areas and leaves everyone else without a voice.

That doesn't really make any sense. The higher populated areas should have a higher representation. Everyone's vote should be equal, otherwise certain people's "voice" is heard louder then others.

Smaller states would not join the Union unless their voice would be heard. It was unfair for them to give up all rights so that one "monster" state could then decide everything.

[Tikker]

Yes, there is. If you did straight vote then it skews everything to the most populated areas and leaves everyone else without a voice.

that's kinda still how it works

it's possible to receive 0 votes in a big chunk of the country, get 51% in specific states, and still get elected

really, what would you need minimum?

california, texas, new york, pennsylvania, ohio, florida, michigan, illinois would get you awful close

[Zanchief]

Smaller states would not join the Union unless their voice would be heard.

How the christ would their voices not be heard? The way it is now, their voices are being heard more than anyone.

Everyone's vote should count the same. Why should it matter where it was cast?

[Naethyn]

Smaller states would not join the Union unless their voice would be heard.

How the christ would their voices not be heard? The way it is now, their voices are being heard more than anyone.

Everyone's vote should count the same. Why should it matter where it was cast?

Realize many states did not want to join the Union. A compromise had to be made or the minor states just simply wouldn't do it. It wasn't in that state's best interest. This was before fed gained as much power as it did as a result of the civil war.

[araby]

Two things:

First, Tossica I'm not calling you out or any other voter/supporter of Obama, but you said something in your post at the top of this page that is a very general statement about McCain supporters. That's fine, if that has been your experience with McCain supporters, then very well.

At the same time, I'd like to post something about the Obama supporters I've been surrounded with here in Charleston. Recently on a local radio show, the interview was asking random folks why they were supporting their candidate. When asked if the 13th amendment should be repealed, there were at least 15 people who responded with, "Yes! That is why I'm voting for Obama!!"

See how that works? I certainly know that not ALL Obama supporters have no clue what the 13th amendment is. I also know that not ALL McCain supporters have no idea why they are voting for McCain.

Second, I was saying in jest that the electoral college is in place to ensure these sort of voters, while exercising their rights, are not the ultimate voice (or popular vote) but instead the number of electors from our state represent those votes, and with (yes wisdom-at least it should be with wisdom) but the truth is, the electoral college has a history and a reason for being in place.

When you know what that is, it's not hard to see why it's there...but it can certainly be argued that it is an outdated idea.