Alaska's political scene (Metlakatla: mover, house, buying)

[Matt Marcinkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Harrier believes that is known as illeism.

Matt Marcinkiewicz feels that if you've posted all 19,427 times in the 3rd person, that has to be worth some sort of monetary prize from city-data. Either that or a permanent ban that was overdue 19,417 comments ago, take your pick

[Matt Marcinkiewicz]

starlite, please don't overlook comment 30. Starting a new comment page for my flippant response to Harrier wouldn't be worth you not seeing that comment.

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz

Whaaat. Bit of a gaff (actually "gaffe", but I figured I'd use your spelling) on your part there. Obama got 65,899,660 votes in November, according to Wikipedia. According to the site referenced at the end of this comment, there were ~206,072,000 Americans eligible to vote as of February of last year. Round that number up all the way to 207,000,000 if you'd like to account for the increase that would've occurred over the course of most of a calendar year. 65,899,660/207,000,000 = ~31.84% of eligible voters voted for Barack (I was one of the ~65.9 million people you have to blame).

Also, according to a USA Today article from around the election that I just encountered in the course of researching these stats, people who were unlikely to vote favored Obama by a 2-1 ratio. So maybe your cause is better served by getting fewer people to vote...maybe you should head to the continental 48, perhaps to the fabled region of the lower 48 known as "the South", and engage in some voter suppression efforts in heavily black precincts. North Carolina seems to be governing to your liking these days; perhaps Shrangi-La awaits you on the Outer Banks. Just be sure not to tell the locals that climate change-induced rising sea levels might be worrisome out there at some point later this century.

Voting Statistics | Statistic Brain

For kicks, let's attach that USA Today article, too:

USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll: Stay-at-home Americans disgusted.

Well, I don't think the Democrats are going to fair out well this mid term election cycle.

The people that voted (even a number of times) were counted. Saying all these other voters were for Obama is just like saying Pakin can see Russia from her house. It's wishful thinking on the democrat side.

Obama still didn't win a landslide no matter how you count the numbers. Reagan won in a real landslide, I think he took 49 states against Carter. Carter took is home state, and just barely at that.

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz

starlite, please don't overlook comment 30. Starting a new comment page for my flippant response to Harrier wouldn't be worth you not seeing that comment.

Do you have a clue to what you're talking about?

[williardium]

Originally Posted by starlite9

Well, I don't think the Democrats are going to fair out well this mid term election cycle.

The people that voted (even a number of times) were counted. Saying all these other voters were for Obama is just like saying Pakin can see Russia from her house. It's wishful thinking on the democrat side.

Obama still didn't win a landslide no matter how you count the numbers. Reagan won in a real landslide, I think he took 49 states against Carter. Carter took is home state, and just barely at that.

I'm glad your personal opinions make you knowledgeable about politics. Landslides don't simply occur based on geographical setting but also by demographics. As this neat chart shows, Obama did win by certain landslides. He won a majority of the female, young, non-white, and urban votes. Maybe the changing demographics of America can be hard to understand, but it is happening as this election showed.

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by williardium

I'm glad your personal opinions make you knowledgeable about politics. Landslides don't simply occur based on geographical setting but also by demographics. As this neat chart shows, Obama did win by certain landslides. He won a majority of the female, young, non-white, and urban votes. Maybe the changing demographics of America can be hard to understand, but it is happening as this election showed.

Glad your impressed with your own well being of copy and paste, your tactics haven changed, just your user name.

Doesn't change the fact the Obama had no landslide, he won, that was it. Now he is destroying America like Hitler did to Germany, Stalin and Mao.

[richelles]

Originally Posted by starlite9

As an American citizen, it is your responsibility to be informed when you go to the voting booth. Not to mention you need to vote. Only about a third of those able to vote in this last Presidential race, Obama won with a narrow margin, but it wasn't a mandate to change America to a social country, triple our national debt and a host of other issues he calls minor issues like running guns, ignoring our Embassy under attack (only the president can order our troops to "Stand Down") cratering health care and so forth, but the blame rests souly on the voter. He was only elected by about 15% of the American voters, that's not a mandate for anyone. I hope people inform themselves and vote this next time and do homework on what all the candidates believe in and look at their history to see if they have a history of doing what they say they will!

Starlite I just spent an hour reading the Constitution of the United States and marked each Amendment to that Document as to what effect it had on voting. I did this to see if your above series of statements contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. First there is nothing in the Constitution requiring a Citizen of these United States to Vote. There are no specified instructions that have to do with any qualifications to cast your vote beyond those that set forth who is eligible to vote. There is no requirement that any person is required to vote. Amendment 14 does give qualifications for an elector and how they shall cast their vote but nowhere does it require the Elector to vote for the person who won the most votes. The President is elected by a majority of the Electors and there are provisions for other cases in which that system doesn't provide a winner.

In your example there has never been a Mandate, whatever that is because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but it does say the President has Executive power once that person is elected and doesn't say that power is shared with anyone during the term of office. The population of the United States is somewhere over 300 million persons. Some portion of that population is under the age eligible to vote so they can't be counted as voters although they are citizens. So lets say one third are in that classification. Then the States make up their laws about who they will allow as voters in their State. Everyone who might be available to register to vote doesn't register or everyone who is registered to vote does not have to vote so maybe half the available electorate wont normally vote. But throwing foo on your mandate there is nothing in the Constitution requiring a Quorum to make an election an official act. In theory there could be three voters who could elect the President. Lets say its you, I, and Met and we voted 2 to one against your candidate. That person is President and since sixty six per cent of the voters voted for the winner does that person have a mandate or just executive power? So your 15% as mentioned above is not an accurate figure as to the votes for the President and you didn't make the point you wanted to make. See Article 1 Section 4; Amendments 14, 18, 22, 27, 29 and read the entire Document to see what else has an application.

[RedJacket]

Originally Posted by starlite9

Doesn't change the fact the Obama had no landslide, he won, that was it. Now he is destroying America like Hitler did to Germany, Stalin and Mao.

That's pretty much what liberals had to say about Dubya and I'm sure it'll be pretty much what liberals will say about the next Republican president, and what Conservatives will have to say about the next Democrat president.

The outcome of such talk is always the same: we decline even more as a nation.

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by richelles

Starlite I just spent an hour reading the Constitution of the United States and marked each Amendment to that Document as to what effect it had on voting. I did this to see if your above series of statements contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. First there is nothing in the Constitution requiring a Citizen of these United States to Vote. There are no specified instructions that have to do with any qualifications to cast your vote beyond those that set forth who is eligible to vote. There is no requirement that any person is required to vote. Amendment 14 does give qualifications for an elector and how they shall cast their vote but nowhere does it require the Elector to vote for the person who won the most votes. The President is elected by a majority of the Electors and there are provisions for other cases in which that system doesn't provide a winner.

In your example there has never been a Mandate, whatever that is because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but it does say the President has Executive power once that person is elected and doesn't say that power is shared with anyone during the term of office. The population of the United States is somewhere over 300 million persons. Some portion of that population is under the age eligible to vote so they can't be counted as voters although they are citizens. So lets say one third are in that classification. Then the States make up their laws about who they will allow as voters in their State. Everyone who might be available to register to vote doesn't register or everyone who is registered to vote does not have to vote so maybe half the available electorate wont normally vote. But throwing foo on your mandate there is nothing in the Constitution requiring a Quorum to make an election an official act. In theory there could be three voters who could elect the President. Lets say its you, I, and Met and we voted 2 to one against your candidate. That person is President and since sixty six per cent of the voters voted for the winner does that person have a mandate or just executive power? So your 15% as mentioned above is not an accurate figure as to the votes for the President and you didn't make the point you wanted to make. See Article 1 Section 4; Amendments 14, 18, 22, 27, 29 and read the entire Document to see what else has an application.

You miss the simple details. As an American, you are a part of our society. There is no Law that says you have to vote, nor have i ever stated so, it is your right. It is however illegal for a non citizen to vote.

Having said that, it is all Americans responsibility to vote. Millions of soldiers have died to give you that right in our history.

[Natural510]

Originally Posted by starlite9

Obama still didn't win a landslide no matter how you count the numbers. Reagan won in a real landslide, I think he took 49 states against Carter. Carter took is home state, and just barely at that.

You're thinking of Mondale in 1984. Your facts are as worthless as your opinions stated as fact. Palin was given softball questions in national interviews in 2008 and whiffed mightily. There's a reason she became a national joke and lost the ticket for the Republicans in the process.