At 1/23/13 04:49 PM, hateyou1 wrote:
Bush won because he won the key state Florida.
As another posted indicated, that is still controversial, albeit a moot point now. It would be more accurate to say the Supreme Court awarded Florida to Bush through judicial order.
You think it's not fair that Fox covered Obama badly?
Personally, I don't care if they cover him badly, as long as they cover him fairly, which, with the notable exception of Fox News, I haven't had a problem with most mainstream media coverage. Some of it was critical of Obama, but it was legitimate criticism. That I don't mind.
Then tell me why every single media outlet made Romney look like an ass
No, sorry, Mitt built that.
while they worshiped Obama like he was a god.
MSNBC, maybe. Fox and CNN hardly did so. Many newspapers were also very critical of Obama while at the same time endorsing him for re-election over the apathetic candidacy of Willard Mitt Romney.
Did he discuss the debt and the thousands of jobless individuals in the country during the inauguration 2 days ago?
From the inaugural address: We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.
Maybe you should read or watch the speech before criticizing it.
Not at all. This guy is a lying politician plain and simple. However, I don't need to reiterate the reasons on why Romney would have been the better choice since it's been done millions of times.
I have my own disagreements with Obama, but given the choice, I'm glad I voted for him rather than Romney, whose policies have not only been debunked numerous times on this forum, but would have resulted in a crippling level of federal deficit / national debt increases.
The point is, electoral colleges defeats the purpose of voting.
Have you even taken a civics class? Do you know how the electoral college works, or why it was implemented? The electoral college was added as a way to safeguard the political participation of smaller states by giving them power that is proportional to their population as a fraction of the total American population. Without it, where do you think candidates would spend their time in modern America? Liberal states wouldn't hear from conservative candidates, conservative states wouldn't hear from liberal candidates. Now that is still true to some extent today, but the really important part is that the electoral college transforms a state like Vermont (which had 299k votes cast in 2012, or .0023% of the total votes cast) into a state that wields a little more power, holding 3 of 538 votes instead of 500k of 125 million (.0056%, roughly double the power they would have in a popular vote system). It puts states on a more equal playing field when it comes to national campaigns, and allows more citizens to have more access to candidates.
Furthermore, the Constitution sets up the electoral college in such a way that citizens don't actually vote for president. When you are voting, you are technically voting on how your state's electoral college representatives will vote in the electoral college. If conservatives are too fucking stupid to understand this, it's probably better off that they don't vote.
The results would have been different if it was self individual votes instead of electoral votes, I promise you that, and you would also get much more voters (who most would vote Romney).
You speculate a lot. You can't prove the results would have been different, regardless of the method used to elect a President. You can't prove that you would get more voters, and you can't prove that most of them would have voted for Romney. In fact, considering recent poll numbers showing that a majority of Americans support a progressive agenda, I would argue that even if it did bring more people to the polls, a plurality of them (if not a majority) would have broken for Obama, not Romney.
Electoral colleges are just flawed period.
Perhaps, and I am willing to listen to serious, thought out proposals about how it should be reformed. But doing away with it entirely is bad policy.
It defeats the main purpose of voting.
Instead of individuals voting like the way it should be, it's state electors voting for us.
After we hold our own elections and tell them how to vote. It's funny how people leave out these convenient little details.
You can't tell me that is how a fair election is supposed to go.
A fair election is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Considering polling reflected a 91% chance of Obama victory the day before the election, I would argue last year's election was fair and accurate. So get over it. And no, I won't change your diaper for you.
I know it's what the founding fathers wanted
It's not just the founding fathers, it has also survived 230-odd years of being susceptible to amendment.
but times are changing.
So wait, conservatives can use this argument when it suits them, but cry foul when it is used against them?
Look, we can debate whether Barack Obama would be a better president than Mitt Romney,
That's a debate you will have problems winning.
but at the end of the day, it's electoral colleges that are the problem.
You still haven't shown any prima facie reason why electoral colleges are the problem. You demand real reasons, facts and logic from us, but show none of your own.
They need to go.
Eh, not so much.
They're the reason why a lot of conservatives didn't vote in 2012.
No, Mitt built that. It doesn't help that the GOP has a track-record of infighting dating back to 2007, which has created a lot of confusion among Conservatives about who is actually leading their party and what their beliefs really are. The Tea Party just added another angle to that problem.