I fear McCain is going to win

[Zkribbler]

It's part of McCain's plan for "change:" In this case, changing Bush's Rovian campaign tactics for McCain's Rovian campaign tactics.

BTW: I saw my first locally televised McCain ad today. It says that Obama's plan will raise MY taxes--not "taxes" (meaning taxes on the top 1%)--but MY taxes. This is a flat out lie.

McCain will say ANYTHING to win.

[Dinner]

They were desperate and knew they had to move now or they lost so they turned the slime machine on high. The good news is it only got them tied on the popular vote and Obama retains enough electoral votes to win further more the post convention bump is dying and we can expect its effect to continue to fade.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
You mean, at the time the Constitution was adopted. The original Constitution makes no mention of suffrage.

Yes in a round about way, powers that are not specifically "claimed" by the Feds in the Constitution are reserved for the states, and suffrage was far from universal initially. The Founding Fathers knew that. Also the provisions for the State Legislatures to "elect" Senators, and the Electoral College "electing" the president. These measures to some extent were to protect the Republic from the mindless masses IMHO, from reading various sources on how the constitution wa developed.

Later the Feds got rid of Race and sex being a barrier to voting as well as eliminating the "poll tax", so the common practice amongst the states was less than universal suffrage. The Founding Fathers knew that, and if that was the intent of the original constitution it would have so been stated, and we probably never would have had Legislatures electing Senators (Later changed by amendment), and the electoral college which stands to this day but has lost much of its original intent. Although Bush did win the 2000 election so the effects of the Electoral College are still apparent in some isolated cases. Albeit maybe not in the way the Founding Fathers intended.

So when women say they are voting for Hillary or for McCain because he has a woman VP, or whites not voting for Obama because he is "part" black, or women voting for Kennedy or Clinton because "he is sexy", provides me with examples of why the Founding Fathers did not specifically make suffrage universal in the original constitution.

Mindless masses voting on the "packaging" vice the issues.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
It really is amazing that the media is calling Obama's use of a common idiom to describe his opponent's agenda sexist, when McCain used exactly the same idiom to describe Hillary's agenda last year. It's exactly the satire of political correctness that they (edit: Republicans) whine about. This ability that the McCain campaign has had in playing the refs is probably a large part of why they've pulled ahead.

But apparently people like Zkirbbler (who is a big Obama supporter) seems to think it was an attack on Palin.

I didn't, but now I wonder if it wasn't coded a bit (after Zkribbler seems to be so sure of it).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But apparently people like Zkirbbler (who is a big Obama supporter) seems to think it was an attack on Palin.

I never said it was an attack on Palin!!

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Lancer
The leftist media has been treating Palin very poorly. Obama's lipstick on a pig comment makes it worse.

It baffles the **** out of me that people think that comment was directed specifically at Palin.

[Ramo]

I didn't, but now I wonder if it wasn't coded a bit (after Zkribbler seems to be so sure of it).

Do you wonder if McCain tried to make a coded sexist reference about Hillary? Did anyone with the slightest bit of sanity wonder?

[Ben Kenobi]

So when women say they are voting for Hillary or for McCain because he has a woman VP, or whites not voting for Obama because he is "part" black, or women voting for Kennedy or Clinton because "he is sexy", provides me with examples of why the Founding Fathers did not specifically make suffrage universal in the original constitution.

It should be done on a per-state basis. You capture 25 states plus DC, you are president.

[Ramo]

So when women say they are voting for Hillary or for McCain because he has a woman VP, or whites not voting for Obama because he is "part" black, or women voting for Kennedy or Clinton because "he is sexy", provides me with examples of why the Founding Fathers did not specifically make suffrage universal in the original constitution.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It should be done on a per-state basis. You capture 25 states plus DC, you are president.

If that had been the rule in 1781, the Constitution would have never been ratified.

BTW: I've heard the argument the President should be chosed by popular vote. Why to you think the will of the majority of people should be ignored and the choice should be made by political areas?

[Ecthy]

Let's face it, BK's idea is retarded and nothing beats popular vote decisions.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've heard the argument the President should be chosed by popular vote. Why to you think the will of the majority of people should be ignored and the choice should be made by political areas?

I live under the Westminster system. Defying the majority is the most important thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well in that case, maybe we should just make it so the Socialist Party USA wins

[Ben Kenobi]

The second rule is that the men with the most money win.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So... Obama then?