VP picks

bismark · Post by **bismark** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:07 pm

given the amount of experience that palin has, would she have ever been picked if she was a man? ok, i think that should give you a bit of hint about the motivation of the mccain campaign (it starts with a P and ends with an UMA).

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:20 pm

bismark wrote:given the amount of experience that palin has, would she have ever been picked if she was a man? ok, i think that should give you a bit of hint about the motivation of the mccain campaign (it starts with a P and ends with an UMA).

Personally... I think he should have picked Hillary as VP...

Democrat, so they will love you...
Has lots of experience in politics... (an excellent liar...)
and voted against FISA!! (big points from me here!)

Avocado · Post by **Avocado** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:11 am

Imogen wrote:i just read an article that made an interesting point about Palin: she's more inexperienced than Obama. if McCain dies, she's our president. and since McCain has harped about Obama's experience level, this seems odd.

I've heard different accounts and opinions of this. An interesting discussion is here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread386345/pg1

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:47 am

orb360 wrote: Personally... I think he should have picked Hillary as VP...

Except that Hillary comes across as a snake, or in other words, the worst parts of politics, to a fairly sizable portion of the population. Considering Obama's image of a fresh, honest, face, I think that she would have hurt his cause.

Imogen · Post by **Imogen** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:53 am

hilary is the very definition of a sneaky politician. she would hurt any ticket she was on. people who wanted her are delusional.

and no one ever plans on dying while in office, but it's certainly not unheard of. i'm sure FDR wasn't planning on that stroke. and mckinley wasn't expecting that assassin. presidents should think ahead and have a VP who is ready to lead. and since mccain is old and has had cancer several times, he should be thinking about that.

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:00 am

Fredjikrang wrote:
orb360 wrote: Personally... I think he should have picked Hillary as VP...
Except that Hillary comes across as a snake, or in other words, the worst parts of politics, to a fairly sizable portion of the population. Considering Obama's image of a fresh, honest, face, I think that she would have hurt his cause.

Obama has his fair share of lies...

But if Obama took her on as VP it would have hurt him because of all the in fighting there was during the primaries...

Wisteria · Post by **Wisteria** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:44 pm

Actually, FDR knew he was in very poor health when he ran for his fourth term. He might not have publicly discussed it, but there was a lot of heated debate over who his Vp pick should be for that term, since a lot of people acknowledged that he just might be selecting the next president. Just a note.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:39 pm

orb360 wrote: Obama has his fair share of lies...

They both do unfortunately. Can we pass an amendment or a law saying that neither party can chose or endorse a candidate, we might actually get someone intelligent in the white house again.

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:31 am

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:
orb360 wrote: Obama has his fair share of lies...
They both do unfortunately. Can we pass an amendment or a law saying that neither party can chose or endorse a candidate, we might actually get someone intelligent in the white house again.

Nah... Stupidity and a lack of integrity is in the job description.

A Mom, but not yours · Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:11 am

An interesting observation on Hilary that came up in a discussion with my daughter recently:

Most first ladies are admired or ignored. They are known for their causes while their husband is in office. The closest I'd ever seen was people laughing at Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" campaign. But the attacks were never aimed at her, just at her cause. When Hilary was first lady, I saw/heard just as many jokes about her as I did about Bill. What that says, I'm not sure, but she certainly didn't fill the same public role as first lady as any others in my experience.

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:30 pm

A Mom, but not yours wrote:An interesting observation on Hilary that came up in a discussion with my daughter recently:

Most first ladies are admired or ignored. They are known for their causes while their husband is in office. The closest I'd ever seen was people laughing at Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" campaign. But the attacks were never aimed at her, just at her cause. When Hilary was first lady, I saw/heard just as many jokes about her as I did about Bill. What that says, I'm not sure, but she certainly didn't fill the same public role as first lady as any others in my experience.

I suspect that she was treated that way because Bill did not respect her. This probably led to the general public treating her in the same way.

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:52 pm

I think I would redo the primary system, so that all the elections are held on the same day in February or March, instead of spread out. It is then more like the real elections, two, you don't have the first states to vote influencing or putting pressure on candidates to drop out because they didn't win a state, all the states get to vote, and have an equal say, and that way there is no long drawn out process or battling like there was with the Democrats.

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:03 am

It should also be popular vote...

One of the main reasons for the electoral college was the logistics of tallying everyone's votes.

We have the technology to easily overcome this.

xkcd *** · Post by xkcd *** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:11 am

orb360 wrote:It should also be popular vote...

One of the main reasons for the electoral college was the logistics of tallying everyone's votes.

We have the technology to easily overcome this.

I do agree with that.

But sometimes, I don't trust the people who design the technology.

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:54 am

xkcd *** wrote:
orb360 wrote:It should also be popular vote...

One of the main reasons for the electoral college was the logistics of tallying everyone's votes.

We have the technology to easily overcome this.
I do agree with that.

But sometimes, I don't trust the people who design the technology.

I'd trust the people who design it...

Just not their ability to write perfect code.

And regardless... We still have to deal with hanging chad business with the current methods....

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:52 am

Yeah, if we got rid of the electoral college, then I'd feel my vote has more impact. As I see it, I can vote either way and it won't matter either way as Utah is such a red state.

orb360 · Post by **orb360** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:54 pm

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:Yeah, if we got rid of the electoral college, then I'd feel my vote has more impact. As I see it, I can vote either way and it won't matter either way as Utah is such a red state.

pretty much... it's like.. 97% republican lol...

sqrt(-1) · Post by **sqrt(-1)** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:59 pm

Oh come on! I know a couple Mormon democrats! LOL!

Nanti-SARRMM · Post by **Nanti-SARRMM** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:48 pm

sqrt(-1) wrote:Oh come on! I know a couple Mormon democrats! LOL!

Against how many republicans? With a winner take all electoral system?

yellow m&m · Post by **yellow m&m** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:02 pm

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:
sqrt(-1) wrote:Oh come on! I know a couple Mormon democrats! LOL!
Against how many republicans? With a winner take all electoral system?

I agree with Nanti. Even if there are a few Mormon democrats, they won't affect much in Utah.

But I do like changing the system. I know that the electoral collage has been very useful, but I wonder if there is a way to do a popular vote, 100%. A purer democracy, perhaps.