Nissan 370Z Tech Forums banner

41 - 60 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,739 Posts
I suppose since mr. Paul has little recognizeable support (as afr as I know) from big oil peeps, prescription drug peeps, gotta have a gun peeps, don't murder a fetus peeps, insurance peeps, better be in church every Sunday peeps, ban alternative life-stlye peeps or ANY peeps with deep pockets....the mass media figures -insert IMO disclaimer- this candidate will run out of money pretty quick, and be unable to defend his campaign from the slings and arrows that eventually befall front runners.

Ya gotta have peeps...with cash to exchange for favors if you want to contend for the big power spots.

Shame really...I'd like to have lots more choices on the ballot, but I suppose that 's not feasible. Maybe if everyone who was registered would take the time to become somewhat informed and actually vote for who they thought was going to do a good job ....nah, that won't happen either.

Props to Mr. Paul for coming out-of-the blue and to all of you who do mark an informed ballot. :salute:
Nice post Kenny....and it's something I've thought about, and unsure of the "right" answer or if there is such a thing.

I regularly hear people talk of needing more choices......but how far do you take it? To infinity? When you vote, will you be thumbing through a book/novel of choices to choose from and vote for each office/position?

People may want more than two choices for instance for POTUS.....so how about three or four? But to someone that may not be enough....they may want five or six. But to someone else.....that may not be enough. See where I'm going?

I think you touched on "a" solution by the average voter just becoming more informed.

Another solution, IMO, would be: I think we'd see a change if those elected to office, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, voted with some individuality....as opposed to as a group. By casting their votes that way, I think it in turns forces voters to do the same.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,860 Posts
Too bad we couldn't have a series of booths. Labeled A, B, C, D, E etc. Each canidate would be inside a booth .. and we would have no idea who was in which one. The voices would be run through something to disguise them .. even as to sex. The voters could then vote totally on the responses .. without regard to political party, sex, race, age or body ordor.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,332 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
More choices don't necessarily make things better. This is a general example, but one that hits close to home (Texas):

Lets say you have 2 candidates: 1 ® and 1 (D) in predominantly red state. There is an off chance that the race will be close depending on the candidates (and especially from the poor job that ®'s have been doing according to popular opinion). Just for kicks lets say people were really upset with the ®'s job lately and 60% of the people voting in this state came out to vote (D). The (D) wins 60/40.

Now lets say that there are some independents (I) on the ballot; two of them to be exact. So now we have: 1®, 1(D), 2(I). In mine and many other people's views, independents are essentially democrats (or in some cases, just not a Republican). Now what happens is the democrat vote gets split between 3 candidates. Republicans vote ® regardless, so now we have:

® 40%
(D) 30%
(I) 15%
(I) 15%

The republican wins easily now. This isn't made up. This is exactly what happened in the 2006 Texas elections.

On a different note, what KShep is saying about needing "peeps" is both truthful and saddening. You have to kiss ass, take peoples money, and other dirty deeds to even become a contender for the presidency. Never mind trying to fix things that are broken, if you don't have deep pockets or people around you with cash to blow, then your message will be lost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,739 Posts
More choices don't necessarily make things better. This is a general example, but one that hits close to home (Texas):

Lets say you have 2 candidates: 1 ® and 1 (D) in predominantly red state. There is an off chance that the race will be close depending on the candidates (and especially from the poor job that ®'s have been doing according to popular opinion). Just for kicks lets say people were really upset with the ®'s job lately and 60% of the people voting in this state came out to vote (D). The (D) wins 60/40.

Now lets say that there are some independents (I) on the ballot; two of them to be exact. So now we have: 1®, 1(D), 2(I). In mine and many other people's views, independents are essentially democrats (or in some cases, just not a Republican). Now what happens is the democrat vote gets split between 3 candidates. Republicans vote ® regardless, so now we have:

® 40%
(D) 30%
(I) 15%
(I) 15%

The republican wins easily now. This isn't made up. This is exactly what happened in the 2006 Texas elections.

On a different note, what KShep is saying about needing "peeps" is both truthful and saddening. You have to kiss ass, take peoples money, and other dirty deeds to even become a contender for the presidency. Never mind trying to fix things that are broken, if you don't have deep pockets or people around you with cash to blow, then your message will be lost.
Josh, I don't think Kenny was advocating more choices so one particular party wins or loses as you tried to illustrate with your example. I think it was a blanket statement of just wanting more choices.

And don't be so quick to dismiss/criticize the money in politics.....it can just as easily be viewed as free speech. A politician can't possibly personally address each and every one of his/her constituents. What better way to express your support or displeasure than to give to a candidate or lobby group.

:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,469 Posts
....and it's something I've thought about, and unsure of the "right" answer or if there is such a thing.
Agree
I regularly hear people talk of needing more choices......but how far do you take it? To infinity? When you vote, will you be thumbing through a book/novel of choices to choose from and vote for each office/position?
yeah, you would be thumbing through a book...it would take forever to cast a ballot. Not feasible unless maybe a foolproof online voting method were developed.
People may want more than two choices for instance for POTUS.....so how about three or four? But to someone that may not be enough....they may want five or six. But to someone else.....that may not be enough. See where I'm going?
yes, it's quite problematic, but a worthwhile expectation imo
I think you touched on "a" solution by the average voter just becoming more informed.

Another solution, IMO, would be: I think we'd see a change if those elected to office, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, voted with some individuality....as opposed to as a group. By casting their votes that way, I think it in turns forces voters to do the same.
Funding from thier party would disappear I imagine, but your solution really should be how it works...I mean if an idea is meritorious it's your duty to support it I think


Too bad we couldn't have a series of booths. Labeled A, B, C, D, E etc. Each canidate would be inside a booth .. and we would have no idea who was in which one. The voices would be run through something to disguise them .. even as to sex. The voters could then vote totally on the responses .. without regard to political party, sex, race, age or body ordor.
Body odor lol
This would work for debates, but when the votes are cast what is said in a debate is too often long forgotten. I like the idea though.

Josh, I don't think Kenny was advocating more choices so one particular party wins or loses as you tried to illustrate with your example. I think it was a blanket statement of just wanting more choices.
Yup
And don't be so quick to dismiss/criticize the money in politics.....it can just as easily be viewed as free speech. A politician can't possibly personally address each and every one of his/her constituents. What better way to express your support or displeasure than to give to a candidate or lobby group.

If you have a well funded special interest group getting ready to take advantage of several hundred of your not so well funded or organized constituents from whom you've never seen a dime - I can guess the winner. If you do the right thing, and protect those constituents, you've limited your term in many cases. So I guess you have to walk a thin line, between doing what's right all the time for a little while, or doing the best you can for a bit longer.

I don't think there's enough of them doing either.

Special interest groups bother me...we've (my industry) been up against a few an they are mofos. Very powerful with unbelievable connections.

IMO a better-less corruptible waywould be going around your neighborhood and enlistiing grass roots support....but that's long gone. Best way to bounce around ideas though. I prefer face to face discussions, but most people don't have time, myself included, for that interaction anymore.

Until all candidates are guaranteed equal funding, I am in a quandry as to being able to trust any of them.

I see your point about free speech. I guess I think free speech should be equated with your vote, and not tied to an individuals ability to contribute to a specific candidate per se. Not much of an arguement but the best my feeble mind can come up with at present.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,584 Posts
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his former wife donated money to Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider, old tax records show.

The organization provides other medical services to women and also advocates for abortion rights.

Federal tax returns show that the Republican presidential candidate and his ex-wife, Donna Hanover, donated money to Planned Parenthood at least six times during the 1990s.

The donations were first reported Monday by the political Web site Politico.com, which said aides to a rival campaign e-mailed the tax returns.

Those returns, from Giuliani's tenure as mayor, had previously been made public, but the rival campaign aides, who insisted on not being identified, pointed out his support for Planned Parenthood, Politico.com said. The donations -- to the group's national, state and local organizations -- totaled $900, and the last was made in 1999, according to Politico.com.

Giuliani and Hanover separated in 2000 and divorced in 2002.

Tuesday, in an appearance on conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's radio show, Giuliani said the donations were not inconsistent with his personal opposition to abortion because "Planned Parenthood makes information available" on other options available to pregnant women, including adoption.

"If there is going to be a choice, there are organizations that are going to give people information about that choice," he said. "I just as strongly support the idea that a woman should have information about adoption."

In addition to abortions, Planned Parenthood offers health and gynecological care, birth control, pregnancy testing, adoption information and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases at 860 affiliated health centers operating under its name, according to the group's Web site.

In 2005, about 265,000 abortion procedures were performed at Planned Parenthood facilities, about 3 percent of the patient services it provided that year, according to statistics posted on its site.

Giuliani's long-standing support of abortion rights has proved to be an obstacle for some religious conservatives in the GOP base, who play a key role in the process of picking presidential candidates.

The former mayor has said that while he personally "hates" abortion, he supports a woman's right to make that choice. However, he has expressed support for a federal ban on late-term abortions, recently upheld by the Supreme Court, and he has also vowed not to lift a ban on using federal money to pay for abortions for poor women, something he advocated as mayor.

During a candidates' debate last week in California, Giuliani said it would be "OK" with him if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. But he said "it would also be OK" if "strict constructionist" judges viewed Roe as precedent and upheld it.

"I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it," Giuliani said.

In a nod to social conservatives, Giuliani has said he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the federal bench who would interpret law rather than legislating from the bench -- something critics of Roe believe the Supreme Court did in deciding the case.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
569 Posts
Ron Paul is too liberal for the Republican party so naturally they will ignore him. For example, I believe he stated in the debate that he was the only one against the war.

On a different note, some of you may be too young, but he somewhat reminded me of Pat Paulsen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
Now lets say that there are some independents (I) on the ballot; two of them to be exact. So now we have: 1®, 1(D), 2(I). In mine and many other people's views, independents are essentially democrats (or in some cases, just not a Republican). Now what happens is the democrat vote gets split between 3 candidates. Republicans vote ® regardless, so now we have:

® 40%
(D) 30%
(I) 15%
(I) 15%

The republican wins easily now. This isn't made up. This is exactly what happened in the 2006 Texas elections.
IMO the same thing happened in the 2000 Presidential Elections.

Ralph Nader took a lot of popular votes away from Gore, and may have caused the Republicans :vomit: to be elected into power. :vomit: So sorry, but Conservative Republicans make me blow chunks.

"In the campaign, Bush criticized the Clinton administration policy in Somalia, where 18 Americans died in 1993 trying to sort out warring factions, and in the Balkans, where United States peacekeeping troops perform a variety of functions. "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building". Bush said in the second presidential debate.[2]Ralph Nader was the most successful of third-party candidates, drawing 2.74% of the popular vote. His campaign was marked by a traveling tour of "super-rallies"; large rallies held in sports arenas like Madison Square Garden, with retired talk show host Phil Donahue as master of ceremonies. After initially ignoring Nader, the Gore campaign made a big publicity pitch to (potential) Nader supporters in the final weeks of the campaign, downplaying Gore's differences with Nader on the issues and claiming that Gore's ideas were more similar to Nader's than Bush's were, noting that Gore had a better chance of winning than Nader. On the other side, the Republican Leadership Council ran pro-Nader ads in a few states in an effort to split the "left" vote.[3] In the aftermath of the campaign, many Gore supporters blamed Nader for drawing enough would-be Gore votes to push Bush over Gore, labeling Nader a "spoiler" candidate."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,860 Posts
Yeah, but it was placed as a "slang"!
Just like all the stupid things our president says.
IF you want to be associated with the likes of that idiot, go for it.
Interesting. I thought at the time, it was amusing to post a link to 'Peeps' in an online Websters. Just how that equates to support or lack thereof for the President is beyond me. Still .. if making comments like that gets you off … then go for it.

I voted for George Bush during the Presidential election. Why? We had two choices. IMO wasn't fair .. it seems to me that in a country with over 300 million that it is really sad to think that the best we can do were these two gentlemen.

If anything, I voted AGAINST John Kerry. To me he is a caricature of a politician .. as if he should be on SNL. Given a choice between someone that I consider dishonest and plastic .. I choose the lesser of two evils.

Still. I find that, again, sad that I should have to type something like that. I suppose part of the problem being that an honest politician, one who doesn't lie, bend the truth to make himself look better or supports stupidity has little chance of wide support among the American people.

That by the way, is true for both political parties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,739 Posts
Yeah, but it was placed as a "slang"!
Just like all the stupid things our president says.
IF you want to be associated with the likes of that idiot, go for it.

Interesting. I thought at the time, it was amusing to post a link to 'Peeps' in an online Websters. Just how that equates to support or lack thereof for the President is beyond me. Still .. if making comments like that gets you off … then go for it.

It was funny at the time Ed......you just have to take into consideration Matt's posts.

No matter if you're being funny, joking, whatever.......I see him doing this behind the keyboard----->
 
41 - 60 of 71 Posts
Top