Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[AJ]

New Rule,

No party may hold all three levers of power for more than one two year session of congress Going back in history, the budget and the country gets royally screwed up when ANYONE has absolute power for too long.

[MrSaigon]

I can't help but love when Stewart gets on a roll: http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_i ... t-ann.html

thats awesome

and so telling.

I missed it. But is Stewart still ripping on Obama? I hope so. I remember for the longest time he didn't, and then he started and the crowd wasn't crazy about it. I just like my political satire/humorous analysis to cover both parties.

[docellis]

i wish whoever was nominated by each party had to partner up and be co-presidents.

[Diddy]

It wasn't really hard to get everyone fired up.

Though, yes, she did present herself very well.

Last night was the first time that ive wanted to cast a vote for mccain instead of just agains obama.

[Leroy]

I'd vote for the 'Free Beer' candidate regardless of party.

[Popeye_Card]

i wish whoever was nominated by each party had to partner up and be co-presidents.

We should return to the old days.

Under the original terms of the Constitution, the members of the U.S. Electoral College voted only for office of president rather than for both president and vice president. Each elector was allowed to vote for two people for the top office. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be president, while the individual who received the next largest number of votes became vice president. If no one received a majority of votes, then the U.S. House of Representatives would choose among the five highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen president would become vice president. If there were a tie for second, then the U.S. Senate would choose the vice president.[4]

The original plan, however, did not foresee the development of political parties and their adversarial role in the government. In the election of 1796, for instance, Federalist John Adams came in first, and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson came second. Thus, the president and vice president were from opposing parties. Predictably, Adams and Jefferson clashed over issues such as states' rights and foreign policy.[6]

A greater problem occurred in the election of 1800, in which the two participating parties each had a secondary candidate they intended to elect as vice president, but the more popular Democratic-Republican party failed to execute that plan with their electoral votes. Under the system in place at the time (Article Two, Section 1, Clause 3), the electors could not differentiate between their two candidates, so the plan had been for one elector to vote for Thomas Jefferson but not for Aaron Burr, thus putting Burr in second place. This plan broke down for reasons that are disputed, and both candidates received the same number of votes. After 35 deadlocked ballots in the U.S. House of Representatives, Jefferson finally won on the 36th ballot and Burr became vice president.[7]

This tumultuous affair led to the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, which directed the electors to use separate ballots to vote for the president and vice president.[3] While this solved the problem at hand, it ultimately had the effect of lowering the prestige of the vice presidency, as the office was no longer for the leading challenger for the presidency.

The separate ballots for President and Vice President became something of a moot issue later in the 19th century when it became the norm for popular elections to determine a state's Electoral College delegation. Electors chosen this way are pledged to vote for a particular presidential and vice-presidential candidate (offered by the same political party). So, while the Constitution says that the president and vice president are chosen separately, in practice they are chosen together.

If no vice presidential candidate receives an Electoral College majority, then the Senate selects the Vice President, in accordance with the United States Constitution. This is a curious anomaly since the sitting Vice President is also President of the Senate and would be called upon to break a tie vote, possibly for himself or his successor. The election of 1836 is the only election so far where the office of the Vice President has been decided by the Senate. During the campaign, President Martin Van Buren's running mate Richard Mentor Johnson was accused of having lived with a black woman. Virginia's 23 electors, who were pledged to Van Buren and Johnson, refused to vote for Johnson (but still voted for Van Buren). The election went to the Senate, where Johnson was elected, 33-17.

[clevername]

I can't help but love when Stewart gets on a roll: http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_i ... t-ann.html

thats awesome

and so telling.

I missed it. But is Stewart still ripping on Obama? I hope so. I remember for the longest time he didn't, and then he started and the crowd wasn't crazy about it. I just like my political satire/humorous analysis to cover both parties.

he does still, mainly on the whole messiah thing, but it's not as frequent as the Republican ripping.

part of that is the show's inherent bias, but a good deal of it is because the Republicans and their news station are just more blatant and much easier targets.

I'd love to see the average Republican American's response/reaction to seeing a montage like that. But they don't watch TDS and the "regular" media won't call themselves or the politicians on it.

[Diddy]

What I admire about the GOP is that they convince the common worker and even the middle class to vote against themselves financially.

How so? Because i believe that people should get to keep the money they earn and not get taxed more because they "make to much"?

[ghostrunner]

I can't watch it right now. Does Stewart have Rove on there with Alan Colmes last night? Colmes was giving him solid questions about Palin, and he was completely belligerent in not answering them. He kept saying "you're doing it again, Alan!"

[clevername]

What I admire about the GOP is that they convince the common worker and even the middle class to vote against themselves financially.

How so? Because i believe that people should get to keep the money they earn and not get taxed more because they "make to much"?

those people are getting to keep what they earn.

I believe that the majority of people should get to keep more of what they earn because they make MUCH LESS than the few that would be affected by this.

I understand the general concept that people have a problem with. I don't get how people can sit there and be indignant when we're talking about a tiny group of people taking home a little less than they are now when what they take home in one year is already more than the vast majority of other tax payers will make in decades of work.

For the majority of tax payers they'll be getting to keep more of what they earn.