Election 08 (Make your prediction)

Sory to brake it to you onfire (I like that better then onifre), but you make no sense.Just look at that frase Now tell me, Who are they? would that be all the polititians? Would Al Gore himself also be part ot the "they" that had planned to have him lose the election?Do you really believe that there is only one party and that they decide before hand who the next POTUS will be and than manipulate the people into electing him (or her) one way or another?Edited by fallacycop, : fix it

Not at all. However, the power is distributed amongst the upper class, and the upper class also controls the media.I'll respond to the rest of the post later, but I just didn't want you to think I believe there's some kind of secret group that runs things. Thats a conspiracy theory. What im saying about the upper class is not a secret at all. They control the power and the way it is distributed. Rrhain agreed with this too, and I'd like to see somneone show proof against that. Name one media market that isn't run by big business?When I use the word "they" I should be more specific but it is just used as a general term for big business and the upper class that controls power/media.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Youtube?

Youtube is owned by Google, an internet giant.And given their propensity for banning a certain anti-creationist member (thanks to Kent Hovind), it could be argued they are in league with big business (over copy-rights). Of course, both Obama and McCain have a channel on Youtube.As an aside, comparing their Youtube pages is an excellent example of who really made good use of decentralized media. Obama has 1822 videos to McCain's 330. A huge chunk of Obama's videos display republicans backing him (that's where I found the "rednecks for Obama") and many videos urging people to vote.It will be interesting to see how well the GOP manages to use the internet in 2012--they have quite a ways to catch up.It also seems as if the democrats have finally found a social organizing unit that can compete with the church--things such as Facebook, MySpace, Youtube. With these the dems can run voter turnout ops that challenge or best the church drive. The reason I don't mention unions is because most US voters do not belong to a union, but most US voters belong to a church, even if inactive. The internet-groups are able, I think, to reach voters in ways that unions inherently cannot.And now I've rambled.I'll make a prediction for 2012:
If Obama has a good presidency, look for him to build his electoral edge. I'm shooting for over 400. Depending on demographics, we could capture some more southern states (Georgia?) or western states (Arizona?) If it's a bad term, he could still win, especially if "No-Fail Palin" or any other right-fringe candidate is the GOP nominee.

If you're talking about the dodos, they're back again. And it wasn't Kent Hovind that got them banned this time, it was Ken Ham.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

none of the other candidates are relevant

---

Why? Perot got nearly 20% of the vote in 1992...even though he had officially dropped out of the race. Let's not forget that Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate in 1912 and beat out the Republican.

quote:

---

By media standards there were two candidates, can we agree on that?

---

For this election, yes. It isn't always the case.

quote:

---

I never said I supported Nader

---

And I never said you did. I was simply pointing out that there was someone on the ballot who does not qualify to your claim of "upper class of society."

quote:

---

you compared me to him by calling me Mr. Nader

---

Indeed, since you used the same argument. That doesn't mean you support him, just that you have the same claim.

quote:

---

and yes he is from the upper class.

---

Really? He's first generation. His parents immigrated from Lebanon and his first language is Arabic (and no, Buzsaw, he's not Muslim. He's Catholic.) While he's worth about $3M, it's all stocks and bonds of which he turns over the earnings to the non-profits he started.Just what is your definition of "upper class," then?

quote:

---

Im pressed for time but I'll give you a quick one off the top of my head, Service Employees International Union.

---

Huh? Standing for a cause and then receiving support from the people who are affected by the cause means you've been "bought out"? There is no way for a group of people who want to have an issue championed to do so legitimately? So gay people seeking to defeat Prop 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida were actually looking to corrupt politics?

quote:

---

I was upset at the Nader comment because I did not show support for any candidate either.

---

Again, I never said you did. I compared you to him since you are arguing the same point, but that doesn't mean you support him.

quote:

---

But, you did vote for Obama, right?

---

Did I? When you read my mind, do you have to concentrate on it or is it something that just rushes in unbidden? Do you pick up the thoughts I am having right then and there or do you have the ability to probe my thoughts without me actually being aware of what you're looking for?Why don't you respond to what I actually said rather than what you wish I would have said.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hi Rrhain, I just meant in this election. I mean, who can forget Teddy Roosevelt? Oh, yeah, I did. But, he wasn't relevant for this election so my forgetfulness was ok. I did not know he and I shared opinions, however, this man is a genius by my standards then. So are many millionares. Why would that exclude him or them from being placed in a tax bracket? I will concede this point and take you on good faith that he actually does this. I'm liking this Nader guy more and more. I gauge it by the same standards that the IRS does. Is there another way to define it? To compare gay peoples struggle to that of Service Employees International Union does not seem equal. Gay people are not looking to corrupt politics, Unions are, whether to our benefit or not is arguable. It depends on which side of the fence you are, again, here is another issue that takes strict party divides. How can you trust anything that is said from either side when their only objective is financial gain? They are all suspect.However, you see it how you see it, im not going to argue that. You asked me for a special interest group and I gave you one. The point is not to say, Well Obama stands for this cause, the point is to ask, WHY does Obama stand for this cause? What does he stand to gain with Union support? Is he just following party guildance? Is it for their campaign contribution? Perhaps, yes perhaps, no. But whenever there is very large sums of money poured into any paticular parties campaign, it becomes suspect as to what his/their actual intentions are. That to me seems like fair and balanced skeptisim. I have to admit, it rushes in unbiddened. The second attempt was a joke, thats why the (lol) was there. But, ok, we'll keep this humor free.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

As a sub-topic, we can discuss WHY did Perot drop out of the election having 20% of the votes?Who stood to lose more voters if Perot continued?Who benefited by Perots exit from the race?Who would Perot be more affiliated with, Democrats or Republicans?IMO Perot droped out because he placed more of a burden on the Republican party, a party he would probably more affiliated with. Your thoughts...?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

And just like that, the Dodo is extinct. Again. And again.I wonder how many false DMCA claims Ham, Hovind, and their ilk will make before they quit?It's getting old.

Perhaps he got tired of the lampooning and people not paying attention to what he had to say. Independents that don't need band wagons. Both parties in the end - it reinforced the two party system.Personally I would have preferred Perot over Bush I, and if we could have had a better voting system I think he would have come in second.As long as there are more than two candidates a single vote does not pick the one most acceptable to all people. Look at the zoo that ran for gov of california in their "special" election.If there are more than two candidates, give everyone two votes to use on any two DIFFERENT candidates.Again, this does not change the constitution -- the votes are still counted in the electoral college. This allows third parties to have a voice.In 2000 if we had this system I think it would have been Gore, Nader, Bush II.I also think the electoral college should be proportional, not winner take all. Then we wouldn't have had the media circus of is FL one way or the other, nor any reason to run a recount when it is close.I also think that each state should NOT release their results until AT the electoral college. This would give them time to run a second election if the first one is botched by bad equipment, or should be delayed due to natural disasters etc. Instead of the election night media circus we could actually watch the electoral college. He had no common liking for Bush I, and no affiliation with religious fanatic forum. Burdening them would not bother him.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : added.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Interesting. I have to ask, if you want proportional, why even keep the electoral college? It becomes wholly unnecessary at that point, no?

One simple (pragmatic) reason: it would not require an amendment to the constitution.A second (more practical) reason: it gives you a reason to hold actual vote tallies until they meet, and this allows all people to vote unbiased by what the votes in the rest of the country are doing, plus the ability of states to run second elections if the first is invalid or to have the election on different days if there is bad weather etc, or to even spread out the voting over a whole week.A third (ethical) reason: making it proportional makes the votes in the small states just as important as the votes in the big states, withholding the actual count until the electoral college makes the votes in Hawaii and Alaska as important as the votes in Lubec Maine.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Perhaps, but I think there was more to it than just 'not getting attention'.From what I can remember, I was 17 years old at the time, he was getting alot of spotlight. I was thinking more along the lines of Republican, due to his financial interests. Your reply seems like the honerable position, but since I don't trust these politicians, even though granted he was not one per-se, I doubt that the independent party was anything more to him than 'the chic that brought him to the dance'. I cannot argue that, It did solidify the fact that any attempt at going at it without one of the two major parties will be futile. Even at 17 I liked Perot overall. Oh come now, you didn't like Gary Coleman for Gov.? lol I like it, but this would create mass confusion. Its hard enough as it is, let alone people getting 2 votes.At any rate if you don't have the two parties sharing equal power then they can't properly campaign to their voters with fear tactics. They'd have to actually deal with real issues and this will create a loss of the illusion for the controling powers. I agree. But the media circus is part of the disinformation agenda. What will the advertisers do?! But, they share equal finanicial interest, perhaps a persuation from the Bush party to drop out because Perots votes would have affected Bush? Im just speculating obviously.Also, the religious affiliation in the republican party is just a tool used to divide party lines. I don't think its an issue when financial interests are involved.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

He's first generation.

---

​

So are many millionares. Why would that exclude him or them from being placed in a tax bracket?

---

It wouldn't. But surely you understand the difference between "old money" and "new money," yes? He doesn't come from the upper class, he eventually found himself there.

quote:

---

I gauge it by the same standards that the IRS does. Is there another way to define it?

---

What you do with your money plays a part. If you have a lot of money but don't do anything with it, how does that make you "upper class"?

quote:

---

Gay people are not looking to corrupt politics, Unions are

---

Really? I think this is going to be one of those things where we will never be able to come to an agreement.

quote:

---

How can you trust anything that is said from either side when their only objective is financial gain?

---

And financial gain is necessarily a problem, why? Last time I checked, poverty was a bad thing and having a good paying job was a good thing. And is it not possible for people to be wrong when it comes to financial gain? Not just in the small stuff but on the big things? When trickle-down economics got shoved on us under the Reagan administration in the 80s, there were literally fewer than 12 of the 18,000 members of the American Economic Association who thought it could work. But the media, in their role as bad stenographer, simply reported that "There are those who say..." and thus made it seem as if there were an actual controversy over the Laffer curve.We've seen this fake controversy before with regard to evolution. There is no controversy. If you look at the literature, you cannot find any support for anything other than evolution. And yet, people think that there really is a question about the legitimacy of the evidence in support of evolution. How many times have we heard here about the grand conspiracy of scientists to keep "intelligent design" down? For crying out loud, Behe himself has claimed there's a conspiracy and he's a published biochemist.So just because something is about money doesn't people can't be completely wrong about absolutely everything.

quote:

---

You asked me for a special interest group and I gave you one.

---

And I am questioning your logic in concluding that they "bought out" Obama. My original question still stands: Standing for a cause and then receiving support from the people who are affected by the cause means you've been "bought out"? There is no way for a group of people who want to have an issue championed to do so legitimately?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

As a sub-topic, we can discuss WHY did Perot drop out of the election having 20% of the votes?

---

Why not let Perot speak for himself? He claimed that the Republicans were threatening to blackmail his daughter. Not wanting to ruin her upcoming wedding, he dropped out in July.Oh, and he dropped back into the race in October.

quote:

---

Who stood to lose more voters if Perot continued?

---

It appears that he was pulling across the field. About 20% of his votes were from those who called themselves "liberal," 27% from those who called themselves "conservative," and 53% from those who called themselves "moderate." The exit polling of those who voted for Perot showed that he pulled votes from Bush and Clinton equally (38%) and the rest wouldn't have voted at all were it not for him.

quote:

---

Who benefited by Perots exit from the race?

---

Conspiracy?Turns out neither. He pulled from both Clinton and Bush equally.

quote:

---

Who would Perot be more affiliated with, Democrats or Republicans?

---

Neither.

quote:

---

IMO Perot droped out because he placed more of a burden on the Republican party, a party he would probably more affiliated with. Your thoughts...?

---

My thoughts are that Perot gets to say why he dropped out, since he did talk about why. He claims to have dropped out because of threats against his daughter.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.