yoda Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Err...technically....Gore did win ! Technically? You either win the electoral vote tally and become the president or you lose the election. Popular vote is nice for purposes of discussion, but doesn't give him any kind of win, technically or not. Plus the guy lost his own home state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooter Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share Posted July 16, 2007 Technically? You either win the electoral vote tally and become the president or you lose the election. Popular vote is nice for purposes of discussion, but doesn't give him any kind of win, technically or not. Plus the guy lost his own home state. I think he means to say that Gore won the popular votes in Florida--giving him the Electoral College. It's just that the Supreme Court took over precedings and chose a few select counties and then abruptly terminated the recount (when Gore was behind). I honestly have no idea--I don't think anyone will ever know because the true facts are hidden!!! But, as I said before, ... ... no freakin way Gore should have made it that close. I mean it was Bush for Godsake--the man can't complete a sentence. A talking gopher outta be able to sweep his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Their purpose of starting America was to have an independent monetary system, and if the entire world followed their model (except for Hamilton--he was a stooge of the European bankers), the ENTIRE WORLD would break free of debt bondage. Problem wasnt their grand intent. problem was their failure of conceivable implementation of it. American model had the unspoken rule : 'for the white-people'. Its initial financial model based solely on slavery and subjugation of natives being the prime money-spinner. By evicting natives of their land and then selling it as US property at bargain-basement prices to attract immigration from Europe. Not till Abe Lincoln did America conceive of a sustainable economy minus slavery and not till the 1950s was it actually implemented in the US legal code. Gandhi did not own slaves but he was a bigot and a racist and a damn near pedophile--he wanted to test his libido by sleeping with multiple teen and pre-teen girls!!!! Gandhi's actions were far more open to interpretation than the founding fathers of US. Ie, Gandhi's acts of so-called bigotry/racism or paedophilia have no quantification. It can be minimal in reality to full blown but the talk is mostly anecdotal and interpretations applied to his writings. However, the founding fathers were most definitely quantifiable in their racism, bigotry & slavery- they owned slaves, they called for christian domination of spirituality and they called for re-education of the inferior darker-skinned people and/or their bondage. Those are evident from US bills passed in the parliament, voted by so-n-so, proposed by so-n-so, etc etc. And no, they wern't the 'good guys' back in the day either. It is a long-known phenomena that US population in the 1600s-early 1900s were the most fundamentalist type in the western world : Immigration was fuelled predominantly by the extremely poor and backwards europeans (fleeing famines, such as irish potato famine) and the religious nutters. Quakers, methodists, etc. were all the 'taliban' of its day in Europe- banned out of Europe because of their religious bigotry ( remember- Europe entered the age of 'enlightenment' in the mid 1700s, America not till post civil war). Basically, the religious,racist & bigoted cretins of 1600-1700s Europe ended up in America and were the so-called 'founding fathers' of America. For eg, America has invaded Canada numerous times in the 1800s (and repelled by the British) in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (prairie provinces) by basically Irish catholic fanatics wanting to convert the natives and east-european immigrants ( Canadian prairie provinces have a lot of Ukrainian/Polish/etc. descendants). One reason Canada is far more moderate and progressive than America is socially is because of us Canucks being in the European sphere of influence longer than American sphere of influence. The progressivism of Europe compared to America (which fyi, is valid to this day), is translated into current day society of Canada and the US. And guess who is going to be the biggest benificiary (though it'd hurt us really bad in the short term) of a weakening US ? Thats right- we Canucks. Its nice to be in a country that is first world in its standards of living and is a net resource exporter. A smart thing for India to do would be to cozy up to the Canadians- a resource-hungry nation like India and a resource-exporting moderate nation like Canada is a match made in heaven. something that neither Canadians or the Indians have to fear about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Popular vote is nice for purposes of discussion, but doesn't give him any kind of win, technically or not. Err...popular vote isnt just 'nice' for purpose of discussion- it is what defines a real democracy. Ofcourse, yanks dont wanna hear how their democracy is far more flawed than many others around the world because they are too busy thumping their chests about being the 'free-est nation on the planet'. Tis a good spectacle though- carry on ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Once again u define the rule and then play by it; cribbing over the rule once result is not in ur favour doesn't look sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 All you guys have seen the cool Clinton. Have you seen Clinton in rage ? See the video ! h3jM4CGwn4g As letterman might say, "To have verbal diarrhoea and still make sense almost all the time defines clinton." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Err...popular vote isnt just 'nice' for purpose of discussion- it is what defines a real democracy. Ofcourse, yanks dont wanna hear how their democracy is far more flawed than many others around the world because they are too busy thumping their chests about being the 'free-est nation on the planet'. Tis a good spectacle though- carry on ! I am sure you have followed Bush Gore 2000 election , all the exit polls before the result had indicated a popular vote win for Bush and electoral win for Al Gore. In fact , Al Gore( I heard it myself) was on record stating that popular vote does not matter and the electoral vote is what counts. And we all know the irony now ,which is , it was Gore who had won the popular mandate but failed to win electoral mandate vis a vis Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Once again u define the rule and then play by it; cribbing over the rule once result is not in ur favour doesn't look sane I aint a yankee- i aint cribbing over a result that concerns the yankees. Got that ? Good. I am underlining the cr@p American *system* of democracy which they unfortunately think is the best and argue in a world-forum with a yankee mentality on what democracy is. it is pretty stupid to discount popular vote because this electorate thing didnt add up. The morons forget that elecotrate vote isn't in phokat- It was designed to represent population-centers and simplify populist democracy for a smaller, leaner government. Ofcourse, they rather dumbly then re-divided the zone into districts but kept the elecorate tied to the state. Didn't realize that if the idea of democracy is to be kept alive, they'd either have to forget about districts or introduce a party-nominee president/prime ministral system to compensate for district-based voting. And then forgot to update the elecorate vote # of various states to reflect the original purpose. Pretty typical from a tv-brainwashed culture with an attention-span of a guy on crack. As usual, your from the 'knows-little-forms-opinions-along-predictable-lines' brigade, yaw-yawing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 all the exit polls before the result had indicated a popular vote win for Bush and electoral win for Al Gore.Exit polls arnt exactly very accurate or very reliable either. Not a very scientific sampling phenomena either. Its a nice little 'cutesy-function' that is rather redundant IMO. Media-constructed 'stat' to keep the public interested and generate near-continuous viewership. ie, financial money-spinning gadget. PS: I followed what happened in Florida and it was disgraceful race-politics. It is known that in Florida's immigration-based centers, the colored population is overwhelmingly democrat and white population is overwhelmingly republican. Colored folks in rural florida are pretty poor and the # of people barred from registering to vote, # of people with this whole 'hanging chad' fiasco, etc., that too in a province run by the brother of the republican candidate was nothing more than 'stealing the vote' in a style that suits lalloo- hell, it makes lalloo seem like a novice ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Jesus , CC and DR at it again . :omg_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Exit polls arnt exactly very accurate or very reliable either. Not a very scientific sampling phenomena either. Its a nice little 'cutesy-function' that is rather redundant IMO. Media-constructed 'stat' to keep the public interested and generate near-continuous viewership. ie, financial money-spinning gadget. That's not the point. All I am saying is Gore really thought that he would win the electoral vote even though Bush may win the Popular vote. In fact the exit polls in this particular case got it spot on when they predicted a close election , but got it wrong on who will when the popular vote. And hence the comment from Gore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 That's not the point.:omg_smile::whatchutalkingabout Your point used the exit polls to construct itself in the first place...kya yar...you use this tool to make a point, then upon argument of the suitability of the tool, you go, thats not the point? Fine then, carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 :omg_smile::whatchutalkingabout Your point used the exit polls to construct itself in the first place...kya yar...you use this tool to make a point, then upon argument of the suitability of the tool, you go, thats not the point? Fine then, carry on. No quarrels with you. Only point I have is Al Gore thought he will win the popular vote and not the electoral vote in this close election. It happened the opposite way. Exit poll can never be accurate , Their is no dispute their. As regards to American system , I disagree with you but will debate later. Got to much work today. :regular_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 btw, does any country of significance have a nation wide election for a single office? i am guessing that there are, but in most democracies, the highest office is determined by indirect elections. i am not interested in some obscure country, mainly in a reasonably well known country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 btw, does any country of significance have a nation wide election for a single office? No, nation-wide election for a singular office is pretty retarded a concept. US president is a semi-dictator for 5 year terms really, in terms of what he can/cannot do in a democratic framework. A bi-cameral party-elected official, in a party elected from the populace and with zero veto ability in national interest matters is a far saner system. And the French president is a far saner election- in a one-off one-person election, it isnt that hard to do a simple populist majority consensus. Correct me if i am wrong but the whole Sarkozy-Royale affair boiled down to populist majority, not indirect election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 US president can be impeached and removed from office by congress. Unless he has the support of his own party's congressional members, he cannot survive. All war funding including funding for his own office comes from congress. All cabinet level appointments have to be approved by congress. So, no, he is not a semi-dictator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 US president can be impeached and removed from office by congress. So can most democracies's leading president/prime-minister guy.Parliamentary democracy has only one flaw: if a party has 2/3rds majority or 75% majority, there better be very clear and fine-tuned rules to consitutional ammendments- or else the govt. is fooked. And my point isnt to debate the 'goodies' in the yankee democracy- most western democracies have a pretty well worked out system. My point is, American system is still pretty retarded compared to most other democracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
living Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance, unless the US is anal enough to ignore hilary or obama due to sex and race issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 My point is, American system is still pretty retarded compared to most other democracies. In what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 In what way? The powers of the president & the lack of a sensible electoral system (as demonstrated with gore-bush fiasco). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts