Yes, I haven't posted in a while, busy with exams etc. But anywho.

I was bored on FunnyJunk Fridge Magnet Game today, and look what I ended up making.

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/271/errorcy5.png

I think its pretty clear who I want to win :smile:(Im Canadian, but I still think its a laugh to see who wins)


I made this BY MY SELF. No one else helped me. I occasionally got the retard :rolleyes: who messed everything up, but I managed to finish it and screenie it before some one else screwed with it.

You're my kinda man!! I love people who know thier politics :biggrin:

I am a big Obama supporter (yes I'm English but I wanna be an American sometimes and sing some Bruce Springstein)

I watched the Democratic elections and continually saw Hilary Clinton's campaign use the most vile tactics of attacking Obama as a person rather than attacking his policies.

Unfortunately, with the media bias in the States, a lot of people fell for the spin and believed the allegations made towards him.

However, the majority of supporters and delegates had brains, and didn't listen to the riff raff from the Hilary campaign.

Also, may I say that Obama should be applauded for the way he dealt with this. Not only is he a charming man, and a handsome one too :smile:
but he is also an intelligent person and has a lot of dignity.

On the Republican candidate, John McCain, unfortunately, due to the media coverage of the close contest between Obama and Clinton, I seem to know very little about him.

What I do know is that he is a Vietnam war hero and slightly older than Obama =p.

I vaguely saw last month, the objectives by both Obama and McCain for issues like Iraq, the economy, taxes in particular and climate change.

I couldn't really make judgments since Sky News (apparently the best for breaking news such as someone's dog being found) only gave brief statements and figures about both of their plans.

But at the moment, if I was an American, I would vote for change and go for Obama!

*Clenches his fist and woots

Btw Tink, the more you thank my posts, the less credibility it'll have :smile:

Btw Tink, the more you thank my posts, the less credibility it'll have :smile:


ahemm. what you wrote, i agreed, therefore, i thanked you. pshhh. no more thankies for you!:twisted:

Obama reminds me of the once young charismatic Tony Blair just before he became the new PM. Frst two terms for Blair went swimmingly well for him and then....Afganistan & Iraq popped up, I just hope Obama doesnt follow in the same footsteps as Blair did and doesnt listen to the pro-war people in his party. I guess only time will tell as Iran is becoming a big issue to the both US & UK Governments.

Obama is reminds me of the once young charismatic Tony Blair just before he became the new PM. Frst two terms for Blair went swimmingly well for him and then....Afganistan & Iraq popped up, I just hope Obama doesnt follow in the same footsteps as Blair did and doesnt listen to the pro-war people in his party. I guess only time will tell as Iran is becoming a big issue to the both US & UK Governments.

Well, I certainly hope that Obama does not follow in the foot steps of George W. Bush. Bush's style was to attack other nations under the "Axis of Evil" rather than attempting to go into dialogue with countries such as Iran and North Korea.

True, a lot of people would not want their countries to be in dialogue with countries with what they would perceive as terroist support based nations, but we have seen the benefits of dialogue.

One of the best examples is the Good Friday Peace Agreement, where the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair helped bring an agreement with the IRA and the Ulster Unionist Party to end terroist attacks by releasing their poltical prisoners.

It is usually the best way to try to negotiate with terroist organisations rather than use threatening behaviour or brute force.

By hearing Obama speak about the issue with Israel and Palenstine, Obama gave an encouragble performance on how to help bring peace in the Middle East.

No matter how much I rate Obama, I doubt he would have success in restoring peace in the Middle East since many past Presidents have tried and failed. The nearest that any President managed to get an agreement with Israel and Palenstine, was President Bill Clinton, but once again, there was a stalemate.

But I am hopeful that Obama is elected as the next President, since we have seen the affects on the UK economy due to the economic difficulties in the US.

It is very vital not only for US politics, but for World politics that the right man is elected as we now live in a climate of fear and terror, unfortunately, this has not been helped by Bush's policies, such as the War on Iraq.

Obama will have a difficult task of trying to keep peace within Iraq but I have every confidence in him to try his best, and that is what matters most.

Well, I certainly hope that Obama does not follow in the foot steps of George W. Bush. Bush's style was to attack other nations under the "Axis of Evil" rather than attempting to go into dialogue with countries such as Iran and North Korea.

True, a lot of people would not want their countries to be in dialogue with countries with what they would perceive as terroist support based nations, but we have seen the benefits of dialogue.

One of the best examples is the Good Friday Peace Agreement, where the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair helped bring an agreement with the IRA and the Ulster Unionist Party to end terroist attacks by releasing their poltical prisoners.

It is usually the best way to try to negotiate with terroist organisations rather than use threatening behaviour or brute force.

By hearing Obama speak about the issue with Israel and Palenstine, Obama gave an encouragble performance on how to help bring peace in the Middle East.

No matter how much I rate Obama, I doubt he would have success in restoring peace in the Middle East since many past Presidents have tried and failed. The nearest that any President managed to get an agreement with Israel and Palenstine, was President Bill Clinton, but once again, there was a stalemate.

But I am hopeful that Obama is elected as the next President, since we have seen the affects on the UK economy due to the economic difficulties in the US.

It is very vital not only for US politics, but for World politics that the right man is elected as we now live in a climate of fear and terror, unfortunately, this has not been helped by Bush's policies, such as the War on Iraq.

Obama will have a difficult task of trying to keep peace within Iraq but I have every confidence in him to try his best, and that is what matters most.

I totally agree with you but I also think Obama might clash with Hillary Clinton on many subjects such as holding face to face dialogue with the leaders of Iran, North Korea etc as Hilary was/is totally against that.

On the subject of Palestine, that will be well we can only hope that something good happens there. I dont expect much as all the ex-US Presidents tend to build up hope then be a let down, and in any case Obama a few weeks ago at a Jewish fundraising event (they bankroll the political parties in the US, thats why the Presidents hardly ever talk against Israel's actions.) where he gave a speech about how he will defend Israel at all costs. I guess because of the strong Israeli connections to both US & UK, the historical ties will always influence and favour both nations foreign policies towards Israel.

I don't know too much about Obama and McCain's policies apart from one being for "change" and the other being a "war-hero".

Another thing I'm trying to get my head around is the Presidential Election system. My understanding is that the Primaries decide the candidates for each party and these candidates subsequently stand for election in November. This second election involves the public voting for electoral college members who then vote for whom they please. This is where I get a bit lost because do the members have to vote for a particular candidate or do they have the freedom to vote for anybody? If the latter is the case, isn't the power of the people severely diminished with regard to the selection of the President?

I don't know too much about Obama and McCain's policies apart from one being for "change" and the other being a "war-hero".

Another thing I'm trying to get my head around is the Presidential Election system. My understanding is that the Primaries decide the candidates for each party and these candidates subsequently stand for election in November. This second election involves the public voting for electoral college members who then vote for whom they please. This is where I get a bit lost because do the members have to vote for a particular candidate or do they have the freedom to vote for anybody? If the latter is the case, isn't the power of the people severely diminished with regard to the selection of the President?

Seems to be a lot less than your post on the Big Bang Theory? :biggrin:

Stick to the Science, Sparrow hehe

No, seriously, good points made. I'm am too a bit confused about the voting.

But I never know how to reply to your posts. Your arguments are way too intellectual for me. :biggrin:

We need someone who is actually going to vote to post or has a knowledge of the US voting system.

My understanding is that the Primaries decide the candidates for each party and these candidates subsequently stand for election in November. This second election involves the public voting for electoral college members who then vote for whom they please. This is where I get a bit lost because do the members have to vote for a particular candidate or do they have the freedom to vote for anybody? If the latter is the case, isn't the power of the people severely diminished with regard to the selection of the President?

The general population will vote in the November Election. After the people pick their candidate, the electors will vote. It depends on each state as to how the electors will vote. In Colorado, the electors will vote in roughly the same percentage as the voters. In the last election 5 of the 9 electors from Colorado went with one candidate and the other 4 votes went to the other major party candidate, reflecting the roughly 45/40 % votes. That's why candidates spend lots of time campaigning in other states where all the electors from the state will vote for the one majority winner of that state (whether he/she gets 45% or 75% of the votes).

The electors should vote according to how the people vote. Most Americans have no clue who the electors actually are, never see their names, etc. but have a trust that they (the electors) will do their jobs.

There have been quite a number of elections where presidents do not actually have a majority of the populous vote. A couple times in history a president has had lower numbers in popular votes, but won because of the arrangements of the electoral votes.

People can argue the benefit or detriment of the electoral college, but in my opinion, it would be almost impossible for the American people to vote for a president with a 2/3 majority instead of a simple majority. And, in fact, like I said before, many presidents do not even have a simple majority of the votes.

And as I studied in college, most presidential candidates are actually pretty similar whether they belong to the Republican or Democratic parties, and I know I am one of many Americans who simply do not care which person wins because it makes very little impact at the local level.

. . .The electors should vote according to how the people vote. Most Americans have no clue who the electors actually are, never see their names, etc. but have a trust that they (the electors) will do their jobs.

There have been quite a number of elections where presidents do not actually have a majority of the populous vote. A couple times in history a president has had lower numbers in popular votes, but won because of the arrangements of the electoral votes.

People can argue the benefit or detriment of the electoral college, but in my opinion, it would be almost impossible for the American people to vote for a president with a 2/3 majority instead of a simple majority. And, in fact, like I said before, many presidents do not even have a simple majority of the votes.

And as I studied in college, most presidential candidates are actually pretty similar whether they belong to the Republican or Democratic parties, and I know I am one of many Americans who simply do not care which person wins because it makes very little impact at the local level.

:eek: That may have answered Sparrow's concerns but it just made things more complicated for me!

I just don't see why each state vote in the same way, just have a polling card with the candidates name on it and go to the polling booth and voila!

If only it was that simple, but with politics, it never is

In Colorado, the electors will vote in roughly the same percentage as the voters. In the last election 5 of the 9 electors from Colorado went with one candidate and the other 4 votes went to the other major party candidate, reflecting the roughly 45/40 % votes. That's why candidates spend lots of time campaigning in other states where all the electors from the state will vote for the one majority winner of that state (whether he/she gets 45% or 75% of the votes).

Does that mean that in some states (e.g. Colorado), the electors represent the popular vote proportionally and in others, all the electors vote for the candidate with the majority of the popular vote, even if it is only a 51/49 majority?

I just don't see why each state vote in the same way, just have a polling card with the candidates name on it and go to the polling booth and voila!

I suppose they don't do that because each state has different numbers of people in it and the number of electoral votes are divided according to each state's population. I don't know why the "middle-man" electors are required in the first place, but there is probably a very good reason! :rolleyes:

Does that mean that in some states (e.g. Colorado), the electors represent the popular vote proportionally and in others, all the electors vote for the candidate with the majority of the popular vote, even if it is only a 51/49 majority?

Exactly! (except usually it is the person with the most votes, not necessarily a majority).



I suppose they don't do that because each state has different numbers of people in it and the number of electoral votes are divided according to each state's population. I don't know why the "middle-man" electors are required in the first place, but there is probably a very good reason! :rolleyes:

Yes! The founding fathers were not sure that the "regular" people could be entrusted with such an important decision.