Dennis Kucinich vs. Ron Paul

Neither of which would be desirable; hence better stick with the federal gov't.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by eros:
Originally posted by SHisIT:
'til i found out about his candidacy i was fairly disinterested in this election cycle. i can't argue w/ the whole constitution based approach; even when i disagree on individual issues.

it is a crazy idea though; i'll give you that. a politican with, you know; principles & ideals… shit like that. if we aren't collectively ready now, i hope we will be soon.
Except when those principles and ideals entail dismantling the federal government and letting all the red states turn themselves into separate little theocracies.
what exactly is wrong with a little dismantling of the federal government? while the red states are turning themselves into theocracies, those blue states would be turning themselves into little socialist enclaves, since we're using generalities.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:

Voting in the US is a joke anyway with this electoral college bullshit. Why can't they have a democratic vote and just count all the votes in the country then whoever gets the most votes wins???
"What an absurd way to choose a president, sneer many non-Americans, perhaps forgetting their own arrangements (the coronation of Gordon Brown as Labour leader and prime minister, without a single vote, springs to mind)."
Smackie, I don't even need to read the article. I never said anything like "my way is better than your way"…my issue is that the US claims to be the worlds greatest democracy when it's not even a democracy
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
the US claims to be the worlds greatest democracy when it's not even a democracy
Show me a better one…

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got.
Show me a better one…
Ireland is an example of a better one… no electoral college to overule the popular vote, and they do instant run-off voting so that voters can support alternative candidates without 'throwing their vote away'
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
A French newspaper said Sunday that recently divorced French President Nicolas Sarkozy may marry former supermodel-turned-singer Carla Bruni, his new girlfriend, next month.
Way to go, Frenchie:

<img src="http://zeno.locaweb.com.br/media/12/20060707-carla-bruni-1.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by E Redux:
Show me a better one…
Ireland is an example of a better one… no electoral college to overule the popular vote, and they do instant run-off voting so that voters can support alternative candidates without 'throwing their vote away'
Unless something revolutionary happened overnight that I'm not aware of, Ireland is a parlimentary democracy, so at least one head of state is not directly elected by the people.
How about some more Carla Bruni pics!
Sarkozy's always done pretty well for himself, but Bruni is of another league…

Have you seen his daughters from his second marriage (they weren't his kids, but geez)? Fugettaboutit…
Bruni's recorded work is actually surprisingly good as well.

Having also dated Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger, she does have a thing for shriveled up old guys.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Bruni's recorded work is actually surprisingly good as well.
Charlie, I like you and all, but did you ever think you may need to take a step back and realize "I can make critical judgements about the worth of records made by international super models?" Is this knowledge you want to pass off to your offspring? Jeez, that's like knowing which Spice Girl released the best solo album. It's taking up space in your brain.

Care to off an opinion of these two?:

<img src="http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/89/a2/a509b340dca05e1580a47010._AA240_.L.jpg" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512jixpmIZL._AA280_.jpg" alt=" - " />

Brian
I have the Milla album. I even went to see her live when she played in DC back when that album came out. I think the club was called the 15 Minute Club. The album was good at the time, but like alot of music, didn't really age well.

I don't have the Naomi Campbell album, so I'm afraid I will not be able to comment on that one.
The 15 minute club was a great place….I used to go all the time, although it wasn't in business for very long.

Down near 15th and K right?

BTW, does anybody have anything to say about NH last night???
;) ;)
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
BTW, does anybody have anything to say about NH last night???
Other than what's being said in my thread (and to get this thread back in track) - if Ron Paul can't garner more than 7.7% in the "Live Free or Die" State, we no longer need to concern oursleves with this man.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by E Redux:
Show me a better one…
Ireland is an example of a better one… no electoral college to overule the popular vote, and they do instant run-off voting so that voters can support alternative candidates without 'throwing their vote away'
Unless something revolutionary happened overnight that I'm not aware of, Ireland is a parlimentary democracy, so at least one head of state is not directly elected by the people.
Ireland isn't really a good example because there's one party inparticular that if they don't like your political beliefs…..they kill you, which isn't very democratic either.


Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracyâ?? C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

It may be the best system, but it's still not a democracy is it? As long as the popular vote does not decide, then it will never be a democracy…
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:



Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-&#712;mä-kr&#601;-s&#275;\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek d&#275;mokratia, from d&#275;mos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States &lt;from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracyâ?? C. M. Roberts&gt;
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

It may be the best system, but it's still not a democracy is it? As long as the popular vote does not decide, then it will never be a democracy…
i might note that except for the election of president, we do live in a representative democracy, as evidenced by the U.S. Congress and state legislatures. Perhaps this definition will help you understand the basics of our form of government-

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Federalism

A system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution. This arrangement not only allows state governments to respond directly to the interests of their local populations, but also serves to check the power of the federal government. Whereas the federal government determines foreign policy, with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war, and control imports and exports, the states have exclusive power to ratify the Constitution. Most governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal governments: both levels are involved in such public policy issues as taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights.

under said federalist system of government, power vested with the states include holding and operating elections, not the federal government. the electoral college is there to allow for each state to have a say in the election of the president, and not the population centers, which could otherwise dominate the vote.

we could go back and forth over whether the electoral college is a quaint relic of the 18th century and their concerns about a popular vote for president, but it's there, and it means every state has a vote, and that state represents the people that live there.
2000 Presidential election results, popular vote.

Bush - 50,456,002 47.87%
Gore - 50,999,897 48.38%
Nader - 2,882,955 2.74%

Remind me again what a democracy is?

It may be a 'representative' government, but not a democratic one, that's all I'm saying. And I don't agree with your 'states have a say' comment, if they do, then every state should have the same number of electoral votes. Why should CA have 54 electoral votes and DC 2? Is DC any less important than CA when it comes to electing a president? And lets say the democratic candidate got 28% of the CA popular vote, shouldn't he/she then be awarded 28% of that states electoral college vote too?


1 voter - 1 vote, it doesn't get any more equal than that now does it? I don't give a toss what states are red or blue, it's what Americans want as a whole that matters….isn't it?
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:

It may be a 'representative' government, but not a democratic one, that's all I'm saying. And I don't agree with your 'states have a say' comment, if they do, then every state should have the same number of electoral votes. Why should CA have 54 electoral votes and DC 2? Is DC any less important than CA when it comes to electing a president? And lets say the democratic candidate got 28% of the CA popular vote, shouldn't he/she then be awarded 28% of that states electoral college vote too?
california gets more because there's more people in it than d.c. (electoral college numbers are based on congressional seats plus 2 for the senate). the house is based on population, but each state gets two senators (except for d.c. and the territories, since they aren't states).

as for apportioning electoral college votes, that is up to the state. . .most states have a winner take all format, two states (nebraska and maine) apportion them out by congressional district (whoever wins the vote in that congressional district, gets that electoral vote), with the 2 extra votes going to the overall winner of the state. if you want your state to apportion delegates by vote percentages, then get it on the ballot. my guess is that the parties don't want proportional voting, as evidenced by the vocal opposition of california democrats to the attempt by some parties associated with republicans in california to move to congressional apportioning of electoral delegates (and the republican's - i think - going against a similiar measure that was defeated in colorado in 2004).