 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 06:25 PM by BlackJackal
|
How was the ATS electoral college won?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 06:26 PM by MaskedAvatar
|
Supreme Court appointees' decisions became acceptable practice in the non-election of 2000.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 06:39 PM by Fry2
|
 Supreme Court appointees' decisions became acceptable practice in the non-election of 2000. 
They did not "decide the election" They did what the supreme court is supposed to do. Apply the Constitution of the United States!
can I laugh yet?
edit: damned fingers
[edit on 18-10-2004 by Fry2]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 06:42 PM by MaskedAvatar
|
Originally posted by Fry2
They did what the supreme court is supposed to do.
can I laugh yet?

You mean follow the golden rule - him who's got the gold makes the rules? A good job was done and no-one bit the hand that fed them.
Corruption.
Yes, please laugh at the comitragedy of the US electoral system.
[edit on 18-10-2004 by Fry2] 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 06:48 PM by Fry2
|
Sarcasm is a very difficult thing to communicate through text. I assure you, MA, that you missed what I failed to translate properly. No harm no foul.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 06:51 PM by spacedoubt
|
My poem from the 2000 Election:
If If You feel you've been had
By the hanging chad
Let the SCOTUS
pick your POTUS
Spacedoubt
As for the Results, here at ATS..
I thought Kerry would have won by a greater margin..
To me, this is good news..
Bush ROCKS in 04
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 06:54 PM by dgtempe
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 06:58 PM by MaskedAvatar
|
Originally posted by Fry2
Sarcasm is a very difficult thing to communicate through text. I assure you, MA, that you missed what I failed to translate properly. No harm no
foul.

But I will record one strike against myself for not picking up on your subtext. My apologies.
When can we look forward to the ATS inauguration of new President John F Kerry?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:04 PM by cyberdude78
|
Well I'm glad Kerry won ATS. I think that the strong Libertarian turnout may have to do with the strong amount of Libertarian support I've seen
recently. I think a lot of credit should go to Amuk for making the Libertarian cause so strong on ATS
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:06 PM by Fry2
|
I personally hope never but it's really hard to say right now. I hate both of the men and they both represent a threat to the future of
America as it has been in the past and should be again. Hence the reason I refuse to support either one.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:35 PM by magestica
|
America is a sad place to be living and raising a family when a good many of Americans are not for either candidate. If you are like Fry2 and myself,
you have three choices; vote for the less worse of the two candidates, vote with your eyes closed and hope for the best, or don't vote at all. Either
way, it's Bush or Kerry. Unless both get knocked off the face of the planet.
All the people who are pro Kerry/anti Bush, will elect Kerry and see him slip right into Bushies old shoes. All people who are pro Bush/anti Kerry
will elect Bush and see him continue on his road to the destruction of America far worse than he's done so in the previous 3 years.
Solution #1-Take a stand to protect YOUR constitutional rights ASAP or see them slip further and further away until you realise you have none and in
fact America is not the "Land of The Free and The Brave"
Solution #2-Run run as fast as you can to some other foreign land.
(I'm sure there are other solutions, but I do not condone war and violence)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:37 PM by Nerdling
|
Ahem. I believe we're losing sight of the true point.
We won.
You didn't.
Na na...na..nananana!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:42 PM by Amuk
|
Originally posted by magestica
If you are like Fry2 and myself, you have three choices; vote for the less worse of the two candidates, vote with your eyes closed and hope for the
best, or don't vote at all. ) 
No another choice is vote third party they wont win BUT if they get 5% of the vote it gets them into the Big leagues.
I dont see not voting as being better than an attempt to make a change
[edit on 18-10-2004 by Amuk]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:43 PM by Nerdling
|
Congrats to the Libertarians on their strong turnout too. They may share some of our champagne. Bwahahahaha!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:48 PM by magestica
|
Oh I agree..TOTALLY
Originally posted by Amuk
No another choice is vote third party they wont win BUT if they get 5% of the vote it gets them into the Big leauges.
I dont see not voting as being better than an attempt to make a change 
But the average American who thinks the way I presented will not vote at all. And I do not see how 5% of the votes can put another party in the "Big
Leagues"?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:48 PM by cyberdude78
|
As Amuk said it vote third-party. Although third-party canidates won't become president anytime soon they won't ever win if nobody votes for them.
I would rather say that I voted for someone who I though was the best person for the job regardless of the outcome, than saying I voted for the lesser
of two devils even if they won.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:49 PM by Nerdling
|
He said "big leagues" because once you reach 5% you qualify for federal funding just as the big 2 do.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:50 PM by John bull 1
|
With aproximately 35% of board visitors non-American and likely to vote against Bush I think this poll actually shows it alot closer amoung Americans
on the board than it at first appears.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:50 PM by MaskedAvatar
|
In more sensible electoral processes than the outdated system of the US, pooling 5% of the national vote provides for 5% representation in
parliamentary seats.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 18-10-2004 @ 07:50 PM by Amuk
|
Originally posted by magestica
But the average American who thinks the way I presented will not vote at all. And I do not see how 5% of the votes can put another party in the "Big
Leagues"? 
It gets them funds from the government to run. Instead of having thousands they would have Millions to use. I think it also gets them equal news
coverage but I am sure someone will let me know if thats wrong.
In other words the 5% mark puts them on the same level as the Big Two
[edit on 18-10-2004 by Amuk]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |