Who do you want to believe?

[George Klass]

I'ts like the little boy that cried wolf. After a while, his credibility is lost.

Here are two stories in the news, both on the same day. Are they both true? Is one of them true and the other one not? Who in our government is there to believe in anymore. Credibility is down the tubes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence

[DougSikora]

Listening to the news this morning on the radio, first report was how the CIA was wrong leading the public to believe that Suddam was connected to Alquida and how they lied. The next report was how the CIA has connected Iran to the violence in Iraq. Listening to them back to back, it was obvious to me what needs to be done. .......... A 1.00 60'

So I ordered some more engine parts and called the chassis guy, and told him to get his ass movin.

It may not be the right answer but its the best I could come up with.

[O.C White]

I'ts like the little boy that cried wolf. After a while, his credibility is lost.

Here are two stories in the news, both on the same day. Are they both true? Is one of them true and the other one not? Who in our government is there to believe in anymore. Credibility is down the tubes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence

So George,

are you going to flip flop on kissing this guy's behind? You were all for him when he replaced Rummy, now you are sharpening your dagger to plunge deep in his back.

And that second link? So just reading the headlines, the military cooked it all up? Well heck who better to be the scape goat in all this right? The military?

[George Klass]

Don't blame me Gunny, I'm only providing the link to the articles. I had nothing to do with writing either one of them.

[George Klass]

And as for me kissing Gates' ass, are you kidding? Who the hell is Gates, other than just another beaurocratic lackey? And jsut because Rumy was a complete mental case doesn't mean that Gates isn't cut from the same cloth. They both report to the Chief Mental case (and the Vice Mental case) remember.

[George Klass]

I told you along time ago Gunny that the politicos in Washington DC, the same peole that you are always kissing on both cheeks and sticking up for, would try to lay the blame for losing this war on the military. Bush and his cronies can "do no wrong". It's the liberals fault, it's the medias fault, it's the Pentagons fault, it's the generals on the grounds fault.

It's never going to be Bushs fault, Cheneys fault, Wolfowitz fault, Rumsfelds fault. Watch and see.

[O.C White]

You're an idiot. I have been saying the longest we would be the fall guy in this whole mess, so check your facts jack.

Every post I ever put up about this crap has been to protect our military so you can french kiss a Cobra George as far as I am concerned.

Who better for you knuckleheads to blame than the military.

Oh yeah did I also mention you stupid?

[Driven2xs]

George,
Is there ANYONE on this planet that you trust?

[George Klass]

No.

[Driven2xs]

explains quite a bit of your alimony woes.......







Oh, ALRIGHT !!! Gunny was THINKING it !!!!


Just kidding ya George!

[nos351]

Is there ANYONE on this planet that you trust?

Dead people are your best best, you can always kick dirt in their face.

[Ed-vancedEngines]

The Blame Game will always be there no matter who is in power as a US President or in power in the houses of government.

I do wish that the POLUTIONS that are referred to as politicians would forget pointing fingers to the other party in blaming for anything wrong or bad, and taking all the credit heaping praise upon their parties about anything worthwhile productive and good.

Everything is always the other's fault.
There was a very real and unbiased investigative report done, which did implicate members of both parties who were in position during those times. The only negative commonality to any of these is that Dick Cheney was anxious to point fingers at Iraq and did seek for proof Iraq was involved in any way to the attacks on us. Seeking proof is not the same as manafacturing evidence. The evidence was there, wrongly interpreted by our Intelliegence and the Intelligence of several other nations, or not. The evidence was there. No one wants to acknowledge that our President was cautious and kept asking the intelligence comunity if that is all thay had. It was not the US President who proclaimed those Memorable Words "It is a Slam Dunk Sir" when getting asked for proof about the involvement of Iraq and the threat to us from Iraq. If what the US President told us and what both of our Houises of Government saw was bad or wrong intelligence findings, it was not lying.

The probelem with long many page investigative reports is that not hardly anyone takes the time to dig and to read them. It is easier to review the briefs or cliff-notes or watch the TV.

Ed

[George Klass]

Wrong again Ed, there is nothing easy about watching TV these days. Have you been watching American Idol? Very painful.

[Ed-vancedEngines]

George,
My TV American Idol is Jack Bauer. When I watch that fictional show, I do see insights into what could be or is real things that are in Government and our Intelligence and Washington DC Politics. I do see political back stabbing, and inner power struggles. I see opposing cabinet members that each believes that the other views are wrong and that only thier view is that of a patriot. I see trusted cabinet members doing things behind the president's back and without his approval. It is an exciting series program of fiction, that to me looks all too real!

Now about the Actual American Idol show;
I see it as being far more lienient and tolerating much more than would ever be in actual real auditions in talent openings. Those who think that Simon is unfairly tough on them have never set in on actual real life talent auditions. My heart goes out to some of the contestants though becuase I lived through this several times with a girl who lived with me a long time, years back. For her or someone like her a show like American Idol would have been a God Send. Popular Recording studios, ath you do not pay money to, and Band group Leaders and owners are really not nice at all when they are auditioning for a talent opening.

American Idol is taking those with crude uncultured talent abilities and grooming them into superstars. I really hate that Jennifer Hudson has trash talked American Idol and said they abused her. Who was she before? How did she sound before? She was a fledgling talent that was very crude and was not commercial worthy and she was a nobody. It IS ONLY becuise of her American Idol culturing and training for free and experienced coaching for free that anyone ever heard of her and that she was given her opportunity. She owes them for her positioning in the Entertainment Field that gave her a vehicle for the doors to open for her. They have helped numerous non-winners to be famous and rich.

Ed

[George Klass]

In my opinion, one of the big problems today with almost everything is that it is averaged down to the lowest common denominator. This includes politics, entertainment, news reporting, just everything. Doing something well, doing something good, doing something right is not prized today. Today it's not a matter of "is it any good?" but "will it sell?" When everything in a socieity is based on "can we sell it, can we make money off of it?", we get what we have.

This question, "Can we sell it, can we make money off of it?" applies to everything today, including our polititions, our products, and most assuredly our entertainment industry. How many remakes of remakes of remakes do we really need? If the original was a good product, you don't need to make a new one. Sooner or later, someone is going to remake "Gone With The Wind", just for the bucks.

Franky Laine died a couple of days ago, who is going to take his place?

There was a time when things were based on quality, not how cheap can we make it, still sell it and get away with it.

[George Klass]

The Greatful Dead had an album titled "Built to Last". Not many things are built to last anymore, they are built to sell. There is this story of the great piano manufacture, Steinway and Sons, about this salesman that brought in a new hammer, the kind of hammer that strikes the keys in a piano. This hammer was made from some new material and was supposed to be better. He gave his sales pitch to old man Steinway. Steinway looked the thing over and told the guy, "OK, we will test it out and if it's as good as you say it is, we will buy these hammers from your company". The sales guy was overjoyed. He asked Steinway how long the test was going to take, to which Steinway replied, "Oh, about 50 years ought to do it".

Today, the new "Steinways" would ask, "how much, how quick can you get them to me, and can they be made in China?"

[steady]

George,
Is there ANYONE on this planet that you trust?

Remember George, 3 people can keep a secret. As long as 2 of them are dead!:supz: :smt100

[George Klass]

Yeah, I hear you on that. Of course, if you (or anyone) tells the truth, then there isn't much to be concerned about. This so-called trust issue only revolves around lies and mendacity. If you are constantly telling lies, then it's going to be difficult to accept what you say on the few occasions when you tell the truth.

[ShadowMaster]

George,
Is there ANYONE on this planet that you trust?
D T A

Don't

Trust

Anybody

Hell...I trust that I'm going to take a shit at least once a week for the rest of eternity and that's about all I trust in this world.

This so-called trust issue only revolves around lies and mendacity.Big word. Did you look that one up before you typed it and hit enter? Oh yeah....and don't think for a minute that the "administration" are the only ones who are not to blame for the current debacle in Iraq. Just ask the Democratic controlled Congress. You'll get a resounding, "Wasn't me" from all of them too.

So if it is the military's fault I wonder if they would be responsive to a change in leadership? What do you think, Gunny? Perhaps an Emperor? :smt077

[George Klass]

Yeah, SD I agree. The lying comes from both sides of the isle, but it's the "I'm the decider" who is in charge of that "current debacle" you are talking about.

[SilverFox]

D T A

Don't

Trust

Anybody

AND C Y A

Cover

Your

Ass................

DTA and CYA.......That is the world we now live in......Whether some of us REALIZE it or not, that is how we are surviving!

[George Klass]

An interesting piece in the paper this morning. We have all heard the story of how Bush was acting on the best evidence of the intelligence community when he made his plans to invade Iraq. Some on this board went so far as to remind us that the Dems got this same evidence, much of which has been proven wrong (WMD, Atta meeting with Iraqi officialas, etc.).

As is usual, the truth ultimately comes out. The reason in this case is because the White House is trying to throw the intellignece community under the bus for the intelligence mistakes leading up to this war and the intelligence community is not taking it lying down.

And as it turns out, it wasn't the intelligence community that had a breakdown in the facts, but a team put in place by Rumsfeld that basically said, "here is what we need to be able to tell the American people". Douglas J. Feith, former Undersecretary for Defense (under Rumy) was selected to go over all the data collected by the CIA and report to the White House.

This "team" was set up by the author of the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz. Feith told Bush what he and Cheney wanted to hear, in 26 findings. The CIA disagreed with the facts (truth) in 50% of Feith's findings (13 out of 26) but were powerless to be heard. The CIA told Feith about these mistakes but no matter, that was the info that was spoon fed to the American public.

It comes down to this. Bush and Cheney wanted a war with Iraq and they were damn well not going to let a simple thing like the facts get it their way.

[nos351]

The thing is the CIA isnt the only intelligience entity in existence.
The consensis is that other agencies in other countries reached the
same conclusion.

[gary medders]

I told all my freinds when Bush was elected we would invade Iraq because he would try to finish what it was preceived his daddy didnt, they all said bullshit. After if it wasnt qiuck and easy I said Iran would be next and then world war three. Its getting closer every day, when it come down to it the muslim nations will stick together because its human nature, its us against you. Their culture in that part of the world has turned into the twenty first century version of nazi germany only worse, theres religous fanaticsim envolved.

[George Klass]

No, not true. The other world intelligence agencies did NOT reach the same conclusions as what was told to the American public by Bush-Cheney through the Feith team.

[nos351]

This is easy to solve....Congress needs to force the release of the memo's and documents regarding Saddams capabilities prior to the invasion by our forces.

[George Klass]

Good luck on that. But even to a layman it should be easy for us (in retrospect) to access Saddam's military capabilities. How long did it take for our troops to overwhelm his country, about three weeks wasn't it?

Of all the scary capabilities, all the fear we were programmed to believe about Saddam and Iraq, told to the Amertican public by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powel, etc., not a single one of them proved to be the truth, not a fucking one.

[nos351]

Of all the scary capabilities, all the fear we were programmed to believe about Saddam and Iraq, told to the Amertican public by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powel, etc., not a single one of them proved to be the truth, not a fucking one.

Al queda is in Iraq, that is a fact. I will concede the other stuff. But here is the ultimate question; do you wait till the boogey man comes before you do something or do you kick his ass so he never comes?

[George Klass]

Sure, al Queda may be in Iraq NOW, after we have been there since 2003, but there is zero evidence that they were there before that. In fact, if you recal, Saddam and al Queda were sworn enemies.

And as to the boogey man, if we are going to "kick their asses" just to do it, here is a list in no particular order of the top 20 dictators. Take you pick.

Omar al-Bashir - Sudan
Kim Jong-il - North Korea
Than Shwe - Burma
Robert - Mugabe - Zimbabwe
Islam Karimov - Uzbekistan
Hue Jinao - China
Crown Prince Abdullah - Saudi Arabia
Saparmurat Niyazof - Turkmenistan
Sayed Ali Khamane'I - Iran
Teodora Obiang Nguema - Equatorial Guinea
Muammar al-Qaddafi - Libya
King Mswati Ill - Swaziland
Isayas Afewerki - Eritrea
Alexander Lukashenko - Belarus
Fidel Castro - Cuba
Bashar al-Assad - Syria
Pervez Musharraf - Pakistan
Meles Zenawi Zenawi - Ethopia
Boungnang Vorachith - Laos
Tran Duc Luong - Vietnam

All these leaders and countries hate the USA. Of course, some of them are not a threat to us but then, neither was Saddam or Iraq.

[Ed-vancedEngines]

George,
That Report or the corrected version of it, recently made available did not name names of the Senior Administration members, like your post did. The other report that I read and that I watched the documentry of on Public Service TV, named only Cheney as the person eager to seek connections with Iraq and Al Queda. Unless your local newspaper is reding different than the CNBC versions of it.

The previous reports to which I am refering was connected with YellowCake and the Dark Day the decision was made to attack inside Iraq. That was when the US President George Bush asked George Tenant "Is this all You Have?" That was the day or night that the President was presented with the Falsified Intelligence Reports about the YellowCake Purchase Inquiry in person by a senor member of the Italian Secret Service.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17077437/page/1/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17077437/page/2/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17051786/

The expressions used Senior Cabinet Members or Senior Administration Officials do not necessarily always point to the US President. Usually they point to those who are on the staff in the most senior positions. This report mentions Tenant and Wolfawitz.

Bush is of course ultimately the one responsible becuase it all happened on his watch. The ones wrongly advising him if that be the case, some were put in place by him. I do not think that the US President Bush, or for that matter anyone would would be US President would intentially lie to put this nation into a war. I believe he felt this was urgent and was imperitive.

I also believe that any other person who would have been he US President at the same time presented with same evidence and evidence confirmed as a "Slam Dunk" in proof by one of his most senior White House Intelligence Advisors. and then backed up by other intelligence officers would have done exactly the same. Remember that George Tenant was there through other administrations too. He was also one of the big finger pointers after it was all done.

You can twist or read into anything you read or hear information to back up your opinions of Bush if you are a Bush Hater. You can find and mis-construe meanings in most anything you read if you are a Bush Supporter.

Me I am a Supporter of MY US President, no matter if he or she is Black, White, Oriental, Democrat or Republican. I have some problems with some things Bush has done. I disagreee with the way he has handled some things. Likewise with our previous US President and all others before him, but I strongly support the person who holds the office of President of the United States of America. That would have also applied if Kerry had manged to sneak in. Bush has had more put on his plate than any US President that I can remember.

Ed

[SilverFox]

Ed's post brings a thought to mind for me.

Do you all know who REALLY elects the President of the United States??? It ain't the VOTERS of the United States..........Ever wondered who tabulates the Presidential election votes???

Some of you may already know the answer......but MOST have no clue, and are appalled when they find out!

[SilverFox]

The Government does not tabulate a single vote. The government has granted a monopoly to a company called News Election Service (NES) to tabulate all votes in all Presidential, Gubenatorial, and Congressional elections. The results from the Counties and Cities are not official for WEEKS later and are NEVER reported by the NATIONAL news media.

Now wait....it gets better! The NES is OWNED and OPERATED by NBC, CBS, ABC, AP and UPI.......YUP, believe that shit!

A privately held company run for PROFIT owned by the NEWS NETWORKS elect the President.....NOT the VOTERS of the United States!!!!!!


Talk about a bunch of stupid sheep huh George!!!!!!!!!! Us voters are just a bunch of imbeciles that are LED TO BELIEVE that we are choosing the CIC!!!!!!!

I think we are getting fucked!!!!!!!!!!

[Ed-vancedEngines]

Tony,
Ever heard of *The Electorial Congress* and about *The Electorial Vote*? That is what has decided who the US President has been for years. Finding out just who is in *The Electorial Congress* gets a little trickey.

By theory each state gets a certain amount of *Electorial Votes* allowed it based on the number of registered voters in that state. By theory if that state is carried by a majority popular vote of one party or the other or an independent, then that Political Presidential Candidate gets all of the *Electorial Votes* alloted to that state. This is done by each member of the *Electorial Congress* of that state to cast their *Electorial Votes* toward the winner of that state's popular vote. This does not alwys happen though. At times there will be a dissenting member who will arbitraily cast their *Electorial Vote* in another direction. The Electorial Voting Process is antique, old school, and is past it's day of usefulness if it ever was any good.

WE need to go by only the Popular Vote.

Ed

[nos351]

Here is a Wall street journal article by Benjamin Netanyahu urging the US to strike Saddam. Notice he talks of missles and chemical weapons. Remember he was former prime minister of Israel. Hmmmm think he might have known something.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002303

[nos351]

Another article quoting Prime Minister Sharon about Israeli Intelligence findings and urging the US to attack Saddam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/17/wirq117.xml

[Ed-vancedEngines]

Considering that both of those guys had their own axes to grind in that fight, I would not look at their statements of being the full 100% unbiased truth. The part that would have carried the most weight for me was that they were vacinating and preparing their citizens for the probability of chemical attack.

Likewise as I saw our Troops going in, I saw them also wearing Chemical Protective Gear. So someone in command must have considered the threat to be real. Has everyone forgotten about the chemical Protective gear and clothing our troops found in many of the palces they entered or the Iraq troops that were carring chemical suits and masks in their posessions?

I am wondering where the cities underground and underground roads went to? Was that also bad intelligence reports or have we just not yet found them?

I wonder if anything has been done to the Iraq Defector that supplied the US with the eye witness reports of the WMD?

So many unanswered questions, including the yet uncovered UN involvements that secretly supported Sadam Hussien. Members of Kofi Annon's family has already been found to be profiting from Iraq's Oil fpr Food concessions. Wonder about the then head of the UN? WE have already seen that all nations opposing any military action were largely profiting from Sadam Hussien's Regime.

Ed

Ed

[nos351]

I agree with your conclusions Ed, the articles do provide proof that we were not alone in the preceived threat from Saddam as some on here suggest almost on a daily basis. Sometimes people forget the long process to war and that the US was not the only one pounding the war drums.

[O.C White]

Likewise as I saw our Troops going in, I saw them also wearing Chemical Protective Gear. So someone in command must have considered the threat to be real. Has everyone forgotten about the chemical Protective gear and clothing our troops found in many of the palces they entered or the Iraq troops that were carring chemical suits and masks in their posessions?

I sure haven't. it was 100 by 10am there in the morning, and we were in MOPP II Protective gear. Heck every time a Scud was intercepted by a Patriot, we would put on full protective MOPP gear.

Ah the good old Scuds that saddam was not supposed to have. Funny talking to the Patriot batteries there that were tracking them, Saddam shot a few a Baghdad into Kuwait which was 350 miles. I thought there was a U.N clause that said he could not have a Scud that could shoot further than 80 miles?

George?

[nos351]

No, not true. The other world intelligence agencies did NOT reach the same conclusions as what was told to the American public by Bush-Cheney through the Feith team.

Really? how would you explain the articles I posted above? Might want to get
a few laps of backpeddling before you reply.

[WASP]

I l;ike Doug Sikoras solution to the problem overseas.

Biggest problem has yet to be dealt with though, and it aint how many troops to send to Iraq, asnd it aint whether or not Iran and Syria are playin border hopscotch with stingers, the big wrench in the works is this

How the hell do you fight a billion Muslims that are hellbent on becoming martyrs in the first place.

Our biggest problem has always been our sense of fair play in war. Our side is the only side that has it and the enemy uses it against us. They know damn well they are safe in Mosques schools and hospitals surrounded by women and children.

[George Klass]

I don't have an answer for Netanyahu's or Sharon's articles, other than as Ed suggests, they did have reason to want Saddam out of there. Everybody did.
My posts were about our own intelligence agency and how they said that 50% of Feith's reproting to the adminisration was based on known lies.

As far as the SCUD missles, Saddam used them on Israel during Desert Storm, didn't have much impact and were never considered to be WMD by anybody.

Try as you might, none of you can do any better than our own military and our own intelligence community to prove that the Iraq's WMD existed as of 2003. Try as you might, none of you can support the contention by Bush and Cheney that Iraq's WMD proved any kind of threat to our security. Try as you might, none of you can prove that Iraq had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with 9/11.

All you can prove is that you are hard headed, closed minded and would do anything you could to suck on Bush's balls.

[George Klass]

This thing about the Electoral College and the way that the president is elected, is this the only election in this country for any public office that is NOT decided on a popular vote count?

[O.C White]

George,

forget the WMD argument for a second geez, he was not suppose to have the missiles period that could shoot over 80 miles. That is a violation the so-called U.N put on him that he wasn't supposed to have them.

You are getting off track. But I see you are blaming the military just like I thought you would turn-coat.

[George Klass]

Blaming the military for what?

[Shelton_Barrs]

Tony,
Ever heard of *The Electorial Congress* and about *The Electorial Vote*? That is what has decided who the US President has been for years. Finding out just who is in *The Electorial Congress* gets a little trickey.

By theory each state gets a certain amount of *Electorial Votes* allowed it based on the number of registered voters in that state. By theory if that state is carried by a majority popular vote of one party or the other or an independent, then that Political Presidential Candidate gets all of the *Electorial Votes* alloted to that state. This is done by each member of the *Electorial Congress* of that state to cast their *Electorial Votes* toward the winner of that state's popular vote. This does not alwys happen though. At times there will be a dissenting member who will arbitraily cast their *Electorial Vote* in another direction. The Electorial Voting Process is antique, old school, and is past it's day of usefulness if it ever was any good.

WE need to go by only the Popular Vote.

Ed

Have to disagree with you on this Ed. The Electroal College has worked pretty well for 200+ years. Remember, be careful what you ask for because you might just get it.

[George Klass]

So SB, is it your contention that the will of the people (at least the ones that voted) should be less important than the vote of the Electoral College? If I remember correctly, and I'm sure that this is what you were actually saying, the guy that won the "popular vote" lost to the guy that didn't.

And you wonder why so many people have given up voting?

[Shelton_Barrs]

The reason the founding fathers setup the elctoral college was to help mitigate some of the effect of large populous areas over smaller less populas areas. This was an attempt (and it works) to try and keep the peoples voice in the smaller states from being drowned out by the larger states. If you do away with the electroal college then the candidates would be free to concentrate only on the large states (based on population) and would have little or no concern for the small states. If you can win 70 or 80% of the vote in California (36 mill.), would you care at all about Alaska (660K), Delaware (843k), D.C. (550k), Montana (935K), North Dakota (636k), South Dakota (775k), Vermont (623k) or Wyoming (509k) for example that combined total less than 5.6 mill. ? Probably not. The top 10 states account for over 50% of the population of the country, total population is 300 mill +/- and the top 10 states have 160 mill +/-. It has worked pretty good all along. And remember, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. And the vote of the people is what determines (with very few exceptions) the vote of the elctoral college.

[Shelton_Barrs]

George,
Here is a link to a page that shows the previous 3 times (not counting Bush/Gore 2000) that the Electoral College went the opposite way of the popular vote. Pretty good reading if you are interested.

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_evpvdisagree.html

and the best example of why we need the Electoral College is:

"1888 - Harrison vs Cleveland
THE CRITICS CHARGE: In this election, critics believe they have their best case against the Electoral College. Grover Cleveland won the popular vote while Benjamin Harrison won the electoral vote. Since no major issues of fraud, voter irregularities, or Congressional meddling is alleged, this is a straight up case of the system being wrong.
BACKGROUND: The main issue, if not the only issue, in the campaign was the tariff, brought to the forefront by the incumbent president Cleveland. He proposed lowering it, widely favored in the South; Harrison wanted to keep higher tariffs, widely favored in the North. One of the most civil and boring elections in history was also one of the closest. Cleveland had only a 0.8% lead over Harrison in the popular vote.
WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SHOULDN'T BE BLAMED: While this may be the critics best example to show the Electoral College is flawed, supporters would say this election shows why the system works. The Electoral College system encourages candidates to make their appeal as broad as possible in order to win. Cleveland basically ran a campaign based on one issue supported by a single region of the country and ran up the vote in that region, thereby padding his popular vote. In the six southern states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, Cleveland received over 65% of the vote. In those six states Cleveland beat Harrison by 425,532 votes. In the other 32 states combined, Harrison beat Cleveland by 334,936 votes.
CONCLUSION: To say the Electoral College failed in 1888 is to not understand how the system works. The Electoral College prevents one region of the country voting as a block from unduly directing the outcome of the election to the rest of the country. The real reason Cleveland won the popular vote (by only 90,536 out of 11,379,131votes cast) but lost the election was because of unusually high support in a single region of the country. " from presidentelect.org

[N2Ojunkie]

The electoral college is old and antiquated and needs to go.


It was first put in place because there would be several cnadidates and the majority of the population could not read or write. Because of this the government didn't think they were smart enough to make such an important decision, so they formed the electoral college to make the "final" decision for them.

[Ed-vancedEngines]

To all of you,
I see that no one actually corrected me in my incorrect phrasing about the *Electorial College*. I appreciate that. However I will admit I was wrong and have always been wrong, because I thought it was Electorial Congress.

Actually neither word should be used because both are incorrect. There is no college and there is no congress involved in it. I think that maybe something like Electorial Committee should be more appropriate.

Ed

[Shelton_Barrs]

The electoral college is old and antiquated and needs to go.


It was first put in place because there would be several cnadidates and the majority of the population could not read or write. Because of this the government didn't think they were smart enough to make such an important decision, so they formed the electoral college to make the "final" decision for them.

The Electoral College was put into place for 2 reasons. 1 reason was to help prevent the public from being duped by a tyrant and to act as a final check to help ensure that only a qualified person became elected to President. The second was to give more power to the smaller states and to allow them to have a say in who was elected. Yes much of the early citizens were uneducacted and illiterate. But restricting the right to vote to white male owners of property pretty much took care of that issue. Working white males did not fully get the right to vote until 1830. Blacks and women waited much longer...

[flyinhillbilly]

Listening to the news this morning on the radio, first report was how the CIA was wrong leading the public to believe that Suddam was connected to Alquida and how they lied. The next report was how the CIA has connected Iran to the violence in Iraq. Listening to them back to back, it was obvious to me what needs to be done. .......... A 1.00 60'

So I ordered some more engine parts and called the chassis guy, and told him to get his ass movin.

It may not be the right answer but its the best I could come up with.X2 that's the best plan i've heard in a while.

[George Klass]

There was a time when the Electorial College allowed candidates to concentrate the campaign process on the states that could make a difference in the election. This was when they gave speeches from the back of a railroad car. Those days are long gone, when communications (like radio) was in it's infancy. Today, with TV and the internet, communications are as easy to read in Alaska as in Kansas City. There is no reason anymore to utalize any system other than the actual vote count.

[RyonPro1]

In my opinion, one of the big problems today with almost everything is that it is averaged down to the lowest common denominator. This includes politics, entertainment, news reporting, just everything. Doing something well, doing something good, doing something right is not prized today. Today it's not a matter of "is it any good?" but "will it sell?" When everything in a socieity is based on "can we sell it, can we make money off of it?", we get what we have.

This question, "Can we sell it, can we make money off of it?" applies to everything today, including our polititions, our products, and most assuredly our entertainment industry. How many remakes of remakes of remakes do we really need? If the original was a good product, you don't need to make a new one. Sooner or later, someone is going to remake "Gone With The Wind", just for the bucks.

Franky Laine died a couple of days ago, who is going to take his place?

There was a time when things were based on quality, not how cheap can we make it, still sell it and get away with it.

First, remember "The Movie" was a remake of the book. Your right George, how many remakes do we need in the entertainment industry? How many 'extra' sanctioning bodies do we need? Are they all just copies off of the original? You make a good point there.;)

If I read you corrctly, all the other sanctioning bodies are just "Cheap" knockoffs of NHRA?

Shawn Ryon

[nos351]

here we go people always wanting to change the constitution.

[George Klass]

Touche on that Shawn, very true. The interesting thing about NHRA however is that NHRA is not at all like it started out to be. Now it's just a big entertainment venue, designed around TV.

The various sportsman organizations are alot more like NHRA used to be, with many classes and race cars that actually look like cars.

[RyonPro1]

I agree with you on that George, when I saw that I couldn't pass it up though.:p

[Shelton_Barrs]

There was a time when the Electorial College allowed candidates to concentrate the campaign process on the states that could make a difference in the election. This was when they gave speeches from the back of a railroad car. Those days are long gone, when communications (like radio) was in it's infancy. Today, with TV and the internet, communications are as easy to read in Alaska as in Kansas City. There is no reason anymore to utalize any system other than the actual vote count.

How do you figure that? The purpose was to force candiates to have to campaign in more states, not less. With the Electroal College the small states matter as much (and could be argued more) than the large states. That is why it was setup, to keep a candidate from only campaigning in a few states (the 10 biggest) instead of all the states. The U.S. was not founded as a pure majority rule nation. It has always been majority rule tempered by the rights of the minority. In looking at our history it is apparant that even with the safe guards we have the majority often gets it wrong. Normally the mistakes are worked out over time and peacefully. If you believe that the majority is always right and never wrong then you probably don't see the need in the Electroal College. The Founding Fathers had seen first hand what happened when anyone or group was given to much power or control. That is why they took great care in creating our form of goverment and putting the safeguards into place that they did. The Electoral College was setup to try and prevent a tyrant being elected to the Presidency (I'm sure some would argue that it failed recently :) ) and to prevent the exculsion of the smaller states.
If you think the majority always gets it right in voting for leaders, think about Germany and Hitler. Now could have the Electoral College prevented Hitler from coming to power? I don't know, maybe. But without it you don't even have the chance. Could it happen here? I think it could...without safe guards it could happen very easily.

[George Klass]

It's true that Hitler was freely elected by the citizens of Germany. Well, like they say, that's a democracy for ya, LOL.

[George Klass]

But Shelton, had we had a so-called popular vote in the 2000 election, would we have still needed the Supreme Court to get involved in the selection process? Florida would have HAD to do a recount, and whatever happened would have happened.

In effect, each state counts up the total ballots for that state, and whichever side has the most votes, that state's electoral votes go to a particular candidate. So, if we can do this count on a state by state basis, why on earth can't we simply add up the votes from each state and declare a winner? What is so holy about having an electoral college decide for us? Why is it that every other election of every other candidate, for every other public office, city, state or federal, can be done by a popular vote, but we can't do that for the pres?

[Shelton_Barrs]

But Shelton, had we had a so-called popular vote in the 2000 election, would we have still needed the Supreme Court to get involved in the selection process? Florida would have HAD to do a recount, and whatever happened would have happened.

In effect, each state counts up the total ballots for that state, and whichever side has the most votes, that state's electoral votes go to a particular candidate. So, if we can do this count on a state by state basis, why on earth can't we simply add up the votes from each state and declare a winner? What is so holy about having an electoral college decide for us? Why is it that every other election of every other candidate, for every other public office, city, state or federal, can be done by a popular vote, but we can't do that for the pres?

Well George, the main reason is that some tried to change the rules midstream in Florida in 2000. Something that is a violation of the law and was stopped as such by the Supreme Court. (As a side note several media groups counted the votes in Florida and Bush won by a slightly wider margin but it wasn't reported on the front page for some reason.)
As far as why is the President different than other offices, which other office has the power the President does? Or even close. Can your local mayor send you to Veit Nam or Iraq? Can the Governor of California? Can a Senator? Can a U.S. Rep issue a Presidential Pardon for any reason, for any crime? Can the local dog catcher wake up and decide to drop a nuke on North Korea?
We could go to a simple majority vote and let the chips fall where they may, just remember the law of unintended consequences. We have safeguards for what can happen, not what does happen. When everything goes right it's easy to think we don't need them, when things go wrong we all wonder why we didn't do something to prevent it.

[N2Ojunkie]

The electoral college makes the votes in one state worth more than votes in others.

Lets say candidate A wins Vermont by 100,000.
And candidate B wins Kalifornia by 10,000.

Candidate B gets more votes????? Sorry it doesn't make any sense and should be done away with.

Disasters like this could be avoided in the future http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

[Shelton_Barrs]

To me that was not a disaster, not even close to one. And not because Bush won, he is far from my favorite.

[nos351]

The electoral college makes the votes in one state worth more than votes in others.

Lets say candidate A wins Vermont by 100,000.
And candidate B wins Kalifornia by 10,000.

Candidate B gets more votes????? Sorry it doesn't make any sense and should be done away with.

Disasters like this could be avoided in the future http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Your not taking the total number of voters in account. California probably
has many times the actual voters as Vermont. Say 5 million vs. 1 million. Now add
your numbers to that. Same outcome.

[N2Ojunkie]

If all that was true it wouldn't be possible to win the election with fewer votes than the other candidate.

[George Klass]

It really comes down to this at some level. States don't vote, people vote, and yet, they only count the number of states. Say what you will, this can lead to an incorrect result, and apperently has on occasions.

[nos351]

If all that was true it wouldn't be possible to win the election with fewer votes than the other candidate.

I realize that, I was just using your example. I actually looked it up, California had
about 10million voters in 04 and vermont about 400,000. So in all actuallity Vermont
had a greater say per vote that California.

I just think changing the constitution, unless overwhelming need is shown, is a bad
thing.

[George Klass]

Well, I would say that insuring that the presidential candidate that gets the most votes is declared the winner would fall under the "overwhelming need", wouldn't you?

I am always suspicisous of ANY process that gets in the way of ANY election that is based on counting the actual votes, and having the person that gets the most votes declared the winner. There is something inherently wrong with anything that can alter the popular vote.

[nos351]

I think the safe guard the EC provides outweighs the disparages that happen from time to time. May I suggest reading the Federalist Papers for more insight.
It can be changed, but i doubt you will get small states to ratify it.

[George Klass]

But again, the president should be elected by people, not by states. The population of any given state should be immaterial to who is elected president, in my opinion.

But you are probably correct and it really doesn't make much difference who is elected president anyway.

[George Klass]

Believing as I do that everything having to do with politics is either corrupt or fraudulent or both, let's take a look at what possible advantage the Electoral College approach could have on the election of a president. If the election was purely based on the total numbers of voters nation wide, it would be difficult for any one party to throw an election their way. The numbers would be too big. On the other hand, if the election were based on the swing of just a few big states, with the winner take all approach, it could be done. I have read about the possible fraud in the Kennedy/Nixon election that took place in Chicago in 1960. Here again, a big state (Illinois) and possible fraud in the biggest city in that state could have been the difference in that election, it was that close, and I wouldn't have put anything past old Joe Kennedy, one of the most corrupt a-holes on earth. Then there was the debacle in Florida in 2000. The very fact that a given state is controled by a governor of one party or the other, and in the Florida situation, the lady actually in charge of the elections being from one party or the other, smacks of the potential for fraud. I'm not saying that there was fraud, I'm just saying that it would make it pretty easy to have fraud with this concept.

The presdential elections are controlled by the results of maybe 6 states in the winner take all approach, which means that any kind of fraud in the largest city in that state, can swing that state. If you could "remove" (or lose) all the ballots in a given area, a block that might always be counted on to vote either for the Repub or for the Dems, you could swing that city's vote count. That's a serious possibility.

[nos351]

Believing as I do that everything having to do with politics is either corrupt or fraudulent or both, let's take a look at what possible advantage the Electoral College approach could have on the election of a president. If the election was purely based on the total numbers of voters nation wide, it would be difficult for any one party to throw an election their way. The numbers would be too big. On the other hand, if the election were based on the swing of just a few big states, with the winner take all approach, it could be done. I have read about the possible fraud in the Kennedy/Nixon election that took place in Chicago in 1960. Here again, a big state (Illinois) and possible fraud in the biggest city in that state could have been the difference in that election, it was that close, and I wouldn't have put anything past old Joe Kennedy, one of the most corrupt a-holes on earth. Then there was the debacle in Florida in 2000. The very fact that a given state is controled by a governor of one party or the other, and in the Florida situation, the lady actually in charge of the elections being from one party or the other, smacks of the potential for fraud. I'm not saying that there was fraud, I'm just saying that it would make it pretty easy to have fraud with this concept.

The presdential elections are controlled by the results of maybe 6 states in the winner take all approach, which means that any kind of fraud in the largest city in that state, can swing that state. If you could "remove" (or lose) all the ballots in a given area, a block that might always be counted on to vote either for the Repub or for the Dems, you could swing that city's vote count. That's a serious possibility.



In total popular vote method you would only have to manipulate 1 vote total.
More control at the top.