Support NeoGAF

[DJ_Tet]

Why? So you can kill another 400 thousand in the next four years?

That's my goal, personally, as a Republican. What is wrong with you?

Even your candidate said that the world was better off without Saddam? No matter the reasons we went in, both agreed that stabilization needed to occur before we withdraw. You can't change the past dude, and NO ONE wants to "kill another 400 thousand in the next four years." Talk about generalizations.

 

[kitchenmotors]

It sucks being a young gay person right now, as these next 4 years can really shape our future, for better or worse.

 

[ElyrionX]

I'm not republican or democrat, liberal or conservative

I doubt you even know what those words mean and the implications behind them....

That's right: you're retarded.

IAWTP

 

[Hollywood]

Your emotions are in the right place, but your hate of Nintendo has fucked with the facts.
Marriage is not just about a piece of paper, if it was, there would be no issue.
This election is probably based on parties less than any other in history.

Hate of Nintendo? WTF did that come from ... LOL

 

[Socreges]

Well said. HOw much longer can we keep acting alone before the consequences catch up with us?

What can happen in four years? I wonder. Probably nothing. Iraq will keep America occupied (rofl), so no more wars. But I'm sure we can expect the deteriorating relations with other countries to accelerate.

 

[nathkenn]

have any of the electoral votes actually been cast?

 

[Dilbert]

Dude I just wanna go about my fucking business without hearing a bunch of idiots try to preach to me about how so and so matters when it really doesnt.

So why exactly are you in this thread?

 

[BruceWayne]

Amazing!
With new mexicao count reporting at 103%(don't ask me how but that's how yahoo is reporting), none of the network is giving to Bush b/c none of them wants to give it to Bush b/c that'd give him the 270+ EV.

 

[RiZ III]

The biggest reason I didn't want Bush in power, was cause I think hes too much of a loon to be in charge of the most powerful country in the world. I mean he thinks that hes on some mission from God. Wtf.

 

[FightyF]

The way you saw it was that neocons were cheering in the streets during 9/11. You've seen your error, and as far as I'm concerned our beef is over.

That wasn't the way I saw it, but I did paint the wrong picture by miscommunicating. Sorry about that.

But I do think that for neocons, 9/11 was exactly what they needed/required and they know it too.

 

[snapty00]

Except the electoral vote would be the thing in question with the challenge being that the opposition didn't win the electoral vote at all.

Like I said, I don't think Kerry is going to win, and I don't think this is going to go any longer than tomorrow really.

I think what he was trying to say, though, is that whoever has to ultimately make that decision *is* going to take account of the popular vote in that area.

But yeah, this probably won't be drawn out like the 2000 election no matter what happens.

 

[MetatronM]

have any of the electoral votes actually been cast?

The vote for the Presidency, contrary to popular belief, does not occur until December.

 

[nathkenn]

it would be amusing if they had some vote of conscience for kerry, that would cause a crazy shitstorm

 

[Hollywood]

So why exactly are you in this thread?

Guess I thought there was at least a few that didn't fall under fucking Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh crazyassness here.

 

[Matrix]

CBSNEWS Dan Rather - delusional -1,000,000

NBCNEWS Tom Brokaw - rational +1,000,000

Dan Rather has lost it...agree 100% with you.

 

[Kettch]

just because you believe that the sanctity of marriage doesn't exist doesn't mean that it's true or that other people don't believe just the opposite. That's why we have a democracy in place to deal with these issues. People disagree on things.

You do realize that barring an overturn of the first amendment, there is no possible way to "protect the sanctity of marriage" from gays right? They can have a religious marriage today, in any state. These latest votes have absolutely nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage, they concern civil marriage.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Hollywood is the token jock vote

 

[snapty00]

Which states are proportionally distributing electoral votes this time? I know one or two are.

 

[videogamer]

Guess I thought there was at least a few that didn't fall under fucking Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh crazyassness here.

You should at least work on being better informed.

 

[nathkenn]

Which states are proportionally distributing electoral votes this time? I know one or two are.

thats the way it should be done everywhere, when a state is 51/49 its absurd to give it to one candidate. i was under the impression that electors were encouraged to vote with the popular vote but didnt have to. i'm sure it probably differs from state to state

 

[impirius]

Which states are proportionally distributing electoral votes this time? I know one or two are.

Nebraska and Maine. Colorado shot down an initiative about that this election, but I guess you saw that already.

Here's a question: What would the electoral votes look like if every state used the proportional system?

 

[MetatronM]

Amazing!
With new mexicao count reporting at 103%(don't ask me how but that's how yahoo is reporting), none of the network is giving to Bush b/c none of them wants to give it to Bush b/c that'd give him the 270+ EV.

Yeah. I asked a little while ago why no one gave it to him when it was at 96 or 99% and Bush had a 5 point lead. That has to be the only reason why. None of the networks that called Ohio want to take that back, but none of them want to declare Bush the winner of the Presidency either since the election is still obviously in dispute.

What a catch-22 Fox and NBC have worked themselves into. After all that talk about how great they were going to do with calling states and how they weren't going to screw it up, they find themselves in a position where they have to either declare victory "prematurely" or just stopping announcing states that fall into the Bush camp. How droll.

 

[snapty00]

thats the way it should be done everywhere, when a state is 51/49 its absurd to give it to one candidate. i was under the impression that electors were encouraged to vote with the popular vote but didnt have to. i'm sure it probably differs from state to state

Well, they really shouldn't have the electoral college nowadays, anyway. It causes more headaches than anything else. I'm sure they served their purpose well in the context in which they were made, but nowadays, they just don't seem to make much sense.

 

[AeroGod]

Guess I thought there was at least a few that didn't fall under fucking Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh crazyassness here.

Hahahha. Yeah right

 

[Meier]

When you're knee deep in sand, and your brother is being deported for his sexuality...I'll laugh.

But for now, I'll just laugh at the fact you're laughing at Democrats for the same bullshit you pull as a Nintendo fanboy.

Every time you bring up this bullshit about gays being deported blah blah, you just look like an idiot. You act as if John Kerry had differing views on gay marriage as well. Both he and Bush were for unions and against marriage. How is he ANY better in that case? Is it just because he isnt George Bush or is it because when we think of homosexuals, we think of extremely left-leaning Democrats, so John Kerry's viewpoint on the subject is somehow less harsh?

As for your second comment, it's total fallacy. I'm one of the very few Nintendo fans at this board who is completely and totally in acceptance of their fate and understands that they should be more concerned about staying alive as a company than making the GameCube more popular. This generation is over for them and has been for some time. Likewise, I'm not a fanboy. I love Nintendo, but I love video games as a whole -- why else would I spend so much time and money on them?

The Xbox has been my system of choice for well over a year and a half now and you'll find me commenting in more or less every major game that's been released for it since then because I play them all. I havent bought a new Cube game since Mario Kart basically (I will be getting Prime 2 on day 1 though), while I've picked up a solid 10 Xbox titles or so in that timespan at full price. The company for me will always be my preference because they got me into games. If I were a fanboy, as you apparently are for the Democratic party, I would completely oppose anyone who competed against them and would make it a point to constantly berate said other companies.

 

[DJ_Tet]

It's not like gay people just want to wear a ring or something. There are HUGE legal implications that come with being married or not for the individual.

Health care is the biggest issue imo. My ex-gf's company offered Health care for gay couples as well as traditional couples. Since Health Care is an issue for companys rather than the govt, what does 'marriage' really count for? Before this president, there was a tax penalty for being married.

He left it up to states, the majority doesn't want to promote gay marriages. I would be offended if I was gay, but considering how long the federal govt discriminated against traditional marriages, I can't really get that pissed.

I thanked gay couples for my medical care a few years ago when my ex-gf worked at Glaxo Smith Kline. Without them, I wouldn't have had anything. That has nothing to do with the federal govt though. Another reason I voted for Bush, the federal govt getting involved with healthcare will be just as bad or worse as when they got involved with public schools. Public schools were origionally for people who couldn't afford alternate schooling, but now is something much more. It's sad, and not a very effective program. Health care could be the same way.

 

[snapty00]

Nebraska and Maine. Colorado shot down an initiative about that this election, but I guess you saw that already.

Here's a question: What would the electoral votes look like if every state used the proportional system?

Just quickly looking at the bigger states (California, New York, Florida, etc.), I'm guessing that Bush's lead would actually be slightly larger than it is now, and Kerry would essentially have no chance whatsoever of winning.

 

[BruceWayne]

Hahahahah.

Ed Bradley proved how it was impossible mathematically for John Kerry to win Ohio.
Dan Rarther's response:
We Shall see..

Leslie's reponse:
We're seeing election 2000 (Yeah right,...Kerry won the popular vote didn't he?)

 

[videogamer]

Every time you bring up this bullshit about gays being deported blah blah, you just look like an idiot. You act as if John Kerry had differing views on gay marriage as well. Both he and Bush were for unions and against marriage. How is he ANY better in that case? Is it just because he isnt George Bush or is it because when we think of homosexuals, we think of extremely left-leaning Democrats, so John Kerry's viewpoint on the subject is somehow less harsh?

Kerry was one of a few who voted against DOMA. Also, he probably wouldn't have used the bully pulpit to promote an admendment against gay marriages.

 

[Ghost]

oh great, 4 more years of this crap.

 

[Kettch]

Both he and Bush were for unions and against marriage.

Bush is not for civil unions, he's for allowing states to decide on civil unions. We already went over that earlier in this thread.

 

[All Hail C-Webb]

You do understand that marriage has HUGE legal importance on a person's life, right? You know, stuff like insurance costs, tax codes, and so on and so forth.

It's not like gay people just want to wear a ring or something. There are HUGE legal implications that come with being married or not for the individual.

Any reason you didn't include adoption rights? I believe that many of the benefits given to married couples are based on the assumption that children will be raised in the future. If a gay couple has no intention of adopting children, I do not see a need for them to be married. You can say the same for straight couples, but it would be hard to go against tradition.

 

[Seth C]

Nebraska and Maine. Colorado shot down an initiative about that this election, but I guess you saw that already.

Here's a question: What would the electoral votes look like if every state used the proportional system?

If every state used a proportional system then why not just let the popular vote decide? Wait, wait, let me guess, it would suddenly be fair if the 51% of voters got to cast 2 votes but the 49% only got one in a state with 3 votes?

 

[Hollywood]

Dude there was a guy in here going off about 9.11 ... what the hell does that have to do with anything?

I'm all for political free speech, but something is wrong when 99.9% of every person going out and voting can only vote for guy number 1 or guy number 2. No one else on any independent platform has the same views as you? Wow what a coinscidence. I didn't know you could group the entire nation into a basic split of this or that. It's like if your a republican you agree with everything about Bush on down the line or a Democrat you agree with Kerry on down the line. At least thats how the votes ALWAYS go in congress. No one can think for themselves. And most of the nation can't either. Bush/Kerry is an idiot, i disagree with everything he says. Thats really funny when both agree on a lot of issues and people still completely hate one or the other. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[DJ_Tet]

Here's a question: What would the electoral votes look like if every state used the proportional system?

Might as well use a popular vote if that was the case. Kerry wouldn't get 55 votes from California for one

The electoral college is in place for a reason, that reason is that every state has different needs.

 

[MetatronM]

Hahahahah.

Ed Bradley proved how it was impossible mathematically for John Kerry to win Ohio.
Dan Rarther's response:
We Shall see.

I didn't see this. What did he say? I'm just mainly curious what the numbers look like.

 

[snapty00]

Hahahahah.

Ed Bradley proved how it was impossible mathematically for John Kerry to win Ohio.
Dan Rarther's response:
We Shall see..

Geez. Did he really say that? :lol It really is basically impossible. With 99% of Ohio reporting, Bush has 51% and Kerry had 48%. Even if the last 1% were all for Kerry, he wouldn't win.

 

[Matt]

thats the way it should be done everywhere, when a state is 51/49 its absurd to give it to one candidate. i was under the impression that electors were encouraged to vote with the popular vote but didnt have to. i'm sure it probably differs from state to state

No, electors can vote for whoever they want. This whole vote thing we just went though really means nothing (other then the fact that if an elector really cast a vote that was not what the popular vote was, their career in politics would be over).

 

[impirius]

Just quickly looking at the bigger states (California, New York, Florida, etc.), I'm guessing that Bush's lead would actually be slightly larger than it is now, and Kerry would essentially have no chance whatsoever of winning.

It's especially interesting in Ohio, where there are just a few very heavily populated counties that voted for Kerry.

For the uninitiated: The proportional system is NOT mainly based on the overall votes in the state. The way the proportional system works in Maine and Nebraska is that each Congressional district gets one electoral vote, and the final two electoral votes are determined by the statewide winner. So in Ohio, for example, Bush would get a ton of the electoral votes from that big red area of the state.

 

[Kettch]

Geez. Did he really say that? It really is basically impossible. With 99% of Ohio reporting, Bush has 51% and Kerry had 48%. Even if the last 1% were all for Kerry, he wouldn't win.

I doubt that the provisional ballots are among the "100%", as they need to be verified before they can be counted. Unless you think 99% of the state's precincts had 0 provisional ballots cast.

 

[DJ_Tet]

CBS just said that if there was a tie in Ohio, the votes would go to a coin toss.


I'm staying on CBS the rest of the night, it's too good Thanks for the heads up GAF.

 

[MetatronM]

Any reason you didn't include adoption rights? I believe that many of the benefits given to married couples are based on the assumption that children will be raised in the future. If a gay couple has no intention of adopting children, I do not see a need for them to be married. You can say the same for straight couples, but it would be hard to go against tradition.

Nope, no reason other than the fact that it's quarter to 4 in the morning and my brain is pretty fried after all this.

 

[MetatronM]

I doubt that the provisional ballots are among the "100%", as they need to be verified before they can be counted. Unless you think 99% of the state's precincts had 0 provisional ballots cast.

They're not among the 100%. They don't even know how many there are yet. That's what they figure out tomorrow according to Ken Blackwell (Ohio Sec. of State).

 

[nathkenn]

CBS just said that if there was a tie in Ohio, the votes would go to a coin toss.


I'm staying on CBS the rest of the night, it's too good Thanks for the heads up GAF.

i'd hate to be the guy tossing that coin

 

[XMonkey]

A coin toss? That can't be serious.

 

[ElyrionX]

U.S. presidents are elected to four-year terms by 538 Electoral College voters, one per senator and representative from each state, plus three from the District of Columbia. In 38 states, the voters are required by law to vote for the candidate who won the popular voter in their state, although all electors usually cast a ballot for the popular vote winner. A candidate must receive a majority of 270 votes to win the election.

Well, electors CANNOT vote for whichever candidate they want....

 

[soundwave05]

Yeah, a coin toss would be crazy.

They should at least play a game of one-on-one basketball or something for it.

 

[Kon Tiki]

haha CBC showed a graphic with Kerry ahead 51% in Ohio. I was too slow with the capture card.

 

[MetatronM]

Did Dan Rather just pop open a can of soda while Ed Bradley was talking? Sure as hell sounded like it to me. :lol

 

[snapty00]

Yeah, they're not among the 100%. My grandmother had to make a provisional vote, actually.

It seems like the differences in many states were big enough that those didn't even matter, though.