FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Use Your Brain, Vote Join McCain





jmi256
New York City has a public access TV station, call MNN (Manhattan News Network), which typically broadcasts non-traditional shows/videos. I saw a show I that thought was funny because a group of NYU/Columbia students got together to make an "underground" video that was pro John McCain and their "tag line" was:
Use Your Brain, Vote John McCain!

If anyone who is on this forum is familiar with NYC, they would know how radical this is for NYC. NYC is a typical liberal city that supports inclusion of all points of view as long as that point of view doesn't deviate from the adopted party line (aka, liberalism/the Democratic party). It's interesting that conservatism is becoming recognized as the new "oppressed" segment of society.

As you can see from the video below, as long as you don't have a point of view that is different from the majority in NYC and most liberal areas, you're ok. But if you dare have a view that is non-conformist, watch out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
balend
Wow have the blog posts in this section have been by you
TurtleShell
New York City is socially liberal but there are a lot of fiscally conservative people there as well. Republicans in Manhattan aren't unheard of and they aren't "underground" and they're not oppressed--look at republican mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg. Bloomberg just won his fight to run for a third term.

I watched the video you posted. That was a classic example of New Yorkers acting like themselves. They encountered something they felt strongly about and they reacted. If you lived there you'd know what I'm talking about. New Yorkers are vocal, aggresive, passionate, proud and famously rude. They take politics very seriously. If they want to cheer or jeer at something, they will.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
New York City has a public access TV station, call MNN (Manhattan News Network), which typically broadcasts non-traditional shows/videos. I saw a show I that thought was funny because a group of NYU/Columbia students got together to make an "underground" video that was pro John McCain and their "tag line" was:
Use Your Brain, Vote John McCain!

If anyone who is on this forum is familiar with NYC, they would know how radical this is for NYC. NYC is a typical liberal city that supports inclusion of all points of view as long as that point of view doesn't deviate from the adopted party line (aka, liberalism/the Democratic party). It's interesting that conservatism is becoming recognized as the new "oppressed" segment of society.

As you can see from the video below, as long as you don't have a point of view that is different from the majority in NYC and most liberal areas, you're ok. But if you dare have a view that is non-conformist, watch out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI


I finally watched this video, and ohmygod how lame. What a bunch of Republican whiners. They march and get booed and so they make a video about it like they are "oppressed" as you say. It's like a sad joke. Oppression is not getting booed, whiners.

It's the whole wingnut version of political correctness. They want to say idiotic things and then claim "oppression" if someone says they're idiots.

Sarah Palin even did it today, saying her first amendment rights were in danger of being violated by the mainstream media! That's so stupid it could set off a smoke alarm -- the first amendment is not there to protect politicians from the media, it's the other way around.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html
dcfive65
Too bad the outcome of electoral votes from NY came out to be OBAMA
TurtleShell
dcfive65 wrote:
Too bad the outcome of electoral votes from NY came out to be OBAMA


Why?
ocalhoun
TurtleShell wrote:
dcfive65 wrote:
Too bad the outcome of electoral votes from NY came out to be OBAMA


Why?

This may come as a shock to you, but he may have agreed with those people in New York. Also it means that those people really had no say in who won the election.
TurtleShell
ocalhoun wrote:
TurtleShell wrote:
dcfive65 wrote:
Too bad the outcome of electoral votes from NY came out to be OBAMA


Why?

This may come as a shock to you, but he may have agreed with those people in New York. Also it means that those people really had no say in who won the election.


yes, and I asked "why" to create more dialogue. s/he didn't say much so I thought maybe s/he'd like to expand on his comment. You think I'm unaware of the existence of republicans? they've been running the show for quite some time.

For that matter, those of us who don't live in battleground states probably all feel a little bit like they don't have much say in who wins the elections. The door swings both ways. As a democrat living in California, I would have prefered to cast my vote somewhere that it would make a more significant impact. I felt the same way when I lived in New York. That's the electoral college at work.
Moonspider
TurtleShell wrote:
That's the electoral college at work.


Did you mean that negatively, positively, or simply matter-of-factly?

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Well, as a rule of thumb I think one should take comments as 'matter of fact' rather than ironic or illustrative...Smile
All electoral systems are imperfect. I can only speak knowledgeably about the UK system - first past the post in constituencies. I gather, from my reading, that this is not dissimilar in outcome to the US system (although it is certainly different in practical operation). It results in a few voters having disproportionate 'power' to influence the final outcome.
TurtleShell
Yes, I didn't really mean that comment about the electoral college negatively or positively. There are positive and negative aspects to the electoral college. Last night on the phone I promised my dad I would vote to eliminate the electoral college if it ever came up, but when I gave it more thought I realized I didn't know if I would or not.

I was thinking about it this morning in the car--the electoral college, I mean. As I understand, the EC exists as a buffer. It was always explained to me that the founding fathers didn't fully trust the will of the people, so rather than the votes determining the winner, the electoral college did. (correct, or incorrect?)

Furthermore, the electoral college doesn't truly have to vote for the candidate that is selected by the majority--electors are technically free to vote for anyone, but in reality they vote for the whatever the majority selects.

So if some mass hysteria or psychosis compelled the citizens of the United States to elect a sociopath president, the electoral college wouldn't have to comply.

(am I still on track?)

but if it ever happened and the electoral college hijacked the election, that would be the end of it, wouldn't it? That would be the end of the Electoral College.

I'd like to hear about how the electoral college system works in the UK.
Bikerman
Well, in the UK we have a number (646) of geographical constituencies (seats).
In each constituency a member of parliament (house of commons) is elected by simply majority. At the end of the election the party with the biggest number of elected representatives gets to form the government, elect the prime minister and select the ministers. Where there is not an overall majority (ie the winner gets less than 50% of the available seats) then we either have a minority government (where the opposition parties can gang-up and defeat the government in parliament) or we have a coalition agreement between two parties (such as happened between Labour and the Liberals several times last century).

Normally, in practice, there will be a designated 'leader' for each party before the election. Obviously the leader will be standing in a 'safe' constituency for the actual election, otherwise major embarrassment could ensue where the party is elected and the leader is not Smile
liljp617
TurtleShell wrote:
Yes, I didn't really mean that comment about the electoral college negatively or positively. There are positive and negative aspects to the electoral college. Last night on the phone I promised my dad I would vote to eliminate the electoral college if it ever came up, but when I gave it more thought I realized I didn't know if I would or not.

I was thinking about it this morning in the car--the electoral college, I mean. As I understand, the EC exists as a buffer. It was always explained to me that the founding fathers didn't fully trust the will of the people, so rather than the votes determining the winner, the electoral college did. (correct, or incorrect?)

Furthermore, the electoral college doesn't truly have to vote for the candidate that is selected by the majority--electors are technically free to vote for anyone, but in reality they vote for the whatever the majority selects.

So if some mass hysteria or psychosis compelled the citizens of the United States to elect a sociopath president, the electoral college wouldn't have to comply.

(am I still on track?)

but if it ever happened and the electoral college hijacked the election, that would be the end of it, wouldn't it? That would be the end of the Electoral College.

I'd like to hear about how the electoral college system works in the UK.


It's a little illogical to base a decision on extreme circumstances that are pretty unlikely to happen. The electoral college has only gone against public opinion two(?) times in US history.

And I'm going to assume most voters are capable of noticing a psychotic person running for President (depending on the circumstances). Even if not, there are still checks and balances on the President and methods of getting him/her out of office.
Moonspider
TurtleShell wrote:
Yes, I didn't really mean that comment about the electoral college negatively or positively. There are positive and negative aspects to the electoral college. Last night on the phone I promised my dad I would vote to eliminate the electoral college if it ever came up, but when I gave it more thought I realized I didn't know if I would or not.

I was thinking about it this morning in the car--the electoral college, I mean. As I understand, the EC exists as a buffer. It was always explained to me that the founding fathers didn't fully trust the will of the people, so rather than the votes determining the winner, the electoral college did. (correct, or incorrect?)

Furthermore, the electoral college doesn't truly have to vote for the candidate that is selected by the majority--electors are technically free to vote for anyone, but in reality they vote for the whatever the majority selects.

So if some mass hysteria or psychosis compelled the citizens of the United States to elect a sociopath president, the electoral college wouldn't have to comply.

(am I still on track?)

but if it ever happened and the electoral college hijacked the election, that would be the end of it, wouldn't it? That would be the end of the Electoral College.

I'd like to hear about how the electoral college system works in the UK.


Actually I believe the electoral college exists for the same reason we have a Senate (each state represented equally) and a House of Representatives (each state represented disproportionately based upon population). The electoral college functions in the same manner to protect both individual rights of citizens to vote and each state's rights as a member of the union. Without the electoral college, presidential candidates would only campaign in high-population areas like California, Texas, New York, and Florida. No one would give a hoot about smaller population states. And of course the interests and political views of Wyoming (population less than 500,000 as I recall) are different than say San Francisco or New York City.

Respectfully,
M
hakkiesco
Hello folks..
Elections in America are really tricky..
This is how the campaign runs using the Democratic Party as an example :

Wards X, Y Z etc. vote for their presidential nomination for the town/city of Tahoe, California. Delegates, to represent their views at the party's state convention, are also elected. This is usually done only by active and registered party members.
Delegates voted for within the town/city go to the party’s state convention and theoretically put forward the views of their city for presidential nomination. The delegates then vote for their nomination and that state will adopt politician A. For example, for the 1996 election, the Republican politician (and eventually the elected Republican candidate) Bob Dole received in his best showing 82% of the votes of Republican delegates in New Jersey. Clinton, as the Democrats unopposed nomination in 1996, received 100% of the delegates for Georgia, his home state…………..
Delegates from the state party go to the party National Convention in August where all the state delegates assemble and vote for their party’s presidential nomination. The person who has a majority support amongst the delegates at the national convention wins the party’s backing for presidential nomination and the nomination for vice president is also voted for.
But :

It is not as clear cut or as simple as this.

Each ward can use its own system of voting for delegates and presidential nomination. This is not standardised throughout America and is symptomatic of the democracy that is meant to seep throughout politics right down to grass roots level. The theory is "why should regional party ‘big-wigs’ dictate to us how we should run our local party structure?".
The National Conventions are inflated delegate-wise with "super delegates" who have not been voted for at a local or state level but are people who have been rewarded by the party for loyalty and long service. These would include state governors, ex-presidents, senior civil servants etc. They can have a marked impact on the final voting of a national convention. That they do not necessarily reflect local party beliefs remains a source of contention in America.
Regardless of this, the most basic requirement that a presidential candidate must have is support at grass roots level.
This requires much travelling throughout the states and therefore a presidential candidate must have sufficient funds to see through a campaign. Winning the hearts and minds of local party activists is vital for a presidential candidate to proceed. They will vote for a candidate who has charisma and political know-how.

In the 1996 election the former Chief of Staff, Colin Powell, who had made his name during the Gulf War, was expected by the media to announce his intention to run for the presidency. However, Powell did not do this despite his popularity amongst the public simply because he, by his own admission, did not possess sufficient political know-how; something that can only be gained with years of political service (though to some extent J F Kennedy bucked this trend).

So I guess it's not perfect but it works.. well that's what matter after all..
Thanks
ParsaAkbari
If Maccain became president he would start world war 3, then world war 4.
eday2010
jmi256 wrote:

If anyone who is on this forum is familiar with NYC, they would know how radical this is for NYC. NYC is a typical liberal city that supports inclusion of all points of view as long as that point of view doesn't deviate from the adopted party line (aka, liberalism/the Democratic party).


1. It's not radical. Giuliani was a conservative, and he saved New York City after liberals left the city turn into a horrid, crime-infested city.

2. If they only support the inclusion of the left-wing point of view, they are not very inclusive, are they? That's like someone saying they support free speech, but the free speech is something they have to agree with.
Related topics
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
Obama
barack obama, friend or foe?
McCain's Worst or Dumbest Quotes
McCain choses Sarah Palin as running mate.
Would you run for office?
McCain responsible for financial crisis in US
Barack Obama vs John McCain
Vote for Hillary
John McCain will really keep taxes low
Sexism in the US Presidential Election
Obama's first 6 months, a list of accomplishments
How do you solve a problem like Sarah? ....
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.