Two questions arising from the 2004 results

[Saturn V]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Clinton couldnt be reelected in 2000?

That's right. They get two terms and that's it (although before 1950 or so there was no limit, just the tradition of two terms (which is why FDR had four terms)).

(22nd Amendment)

[Galleleo]

I know that, it was more kinda like sarcasmic hypothetical kinda thingy

[Saturn V]

I know that, it was more kinda like sarcasmic hypothetical kinda thingy

Sorry, your sarcasmic-hypothetical-kinda-thingy tone was lost among all the 1's and 0's.

[Galleleo]

I didnt see any 1's... I did see 3 0's tho. and A 2.

[lecherious young gun]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Clinton couldnt be reelected in 2000?

bwhahah semantics

[Mantra-Slider]

Maybe if you guys added some more parties to pick from there would be more than 2 candidates for president..

[bloodzombie]

Maybe if you guys added some more parties to pick from there would be more than 2 candidates for president..

The voting system would need to change for that to happen, and you really think the repubs and the dems would change the way we vote so that they get weaker?

All of the "third party" candidates are pushing for something they call "instant runoff voting" where you can vote for someone, but have a second choice so that, for example, you could've voted for nader, but put Kerry as your second choice, so when it's obvious nader can't win, your vote goes to kerry so that your'e not helping Bush win by voting for nader.

Here in washington we just voted for a new primary system that will actually decrease the chance of a third party for our local elections. the top two vote-getters from any party will move on to the general election. Most often, the top two will be a dem and a repub, but it could happen that we'd have two repubs or two dems to choose from.

[Mantra-Slider]

Your options are so limited tho... Its obvious you cant fill in 250 million opinions in 2 parties. You cant with 7 either but at least theres more options!

[bloodzombie]

Your options are so limited tho... Its obvious you cant fill in 250 million opinions in 2 parties. You cant with 7 either but at least theres more options!

I'm with you, but the problem is that one of the two is going to win. If you vote for a third, in a way, you're hurting the democrat or republican that is closer to your particular views.

If Nader didn't run in 2000, there's a good chance that Gore would've won, because most Nader voters would've chosen Gore as their second choice. That's why republicans were actually helping nader get on the ballots in states that he was having trouble with.

[Troll King]

The problem is too systemic at this point to change without a complete overhaul of the entire political process, and the only people who can make that change are the ones with the most to lose.

[Ephemeral]

That said no one's mentioned the gay marriage thing so here's my take on it:

I think it's sad that all 11 states that had it on their ballots banned gay marriages and/or civil unions. Why do people (like panda's hillbilly parents) care so much about what other people do? It's not like these gay people are going to get married in your church. It's not like they're forcing your kids to be gay. It's not like they're infringing on anyone else's rights. Why not let gays do what they want? Why not extend the same benefits to them that every other heterosexual (be it common law or marriage) couple gets? These are people too, and they face the same types of problems all couples do, and giving them the same benefits and respect is good for all of society. It's so sad that a nation that professes to be the leader of tolarance and human rights in the world could be so against this.

-Epi

One thing that this would impact are those companies offering health insurance. Suddenly and over night, many companies would be faced with having to foot the bill of the same sex spouses that would become eligible for health insurance.
Frankly, my growing company has struggled with the cost of health insurance over the last 3 years. We pay 90% of the employees coverage and 50% of their spouse/family. With no one abusing the insurance, or any extraordinary claims over the last 3 years, it has gone up over 28% EACH YEAR.
So it would be adding to this cost when there is a sudden surge by the addition of same sex marriages, some of which have very large health care cost, given AIDS. How come no one talks about this as one of the costs of same sex marriages? Do people not think that companies will pass on this increase on to the rest of employees? Companies will simply lower the amount they kick into the plans, passing on the costs to the employee.

[bloodzombie]

That might be true, but that's also fair.

But like you said, cost of health insurance for you has gone up 28% each year.. there's a different problem with that system that has nothing to do with gay marriages.

[Mantra-Slider]

it seems like you are going in the wrong direction bz.. you are not changing the system, only modifiying the old one into an even crappier and preventing the REAL change from actually happen. Or?