A different President for a different Nation...

[blackfox]

OK, I thought i'd change the pace up a little bit...we'll see how it goes...

I am curious of peoples' opinions of which of these will acheive the Presidency of the United States first (with the option of why):

1. A Woman
2. An Afro-American Man
3. An Asian-American Man
4. A Mexican-American/Hispanic Man
5. A Foreign-born Citizen
6. A Single Man
7. A Homosexual Man
8. A Muslim

I admit is is not a comprehensive list, and I explicitly left out the female examples of 2-7 for the obvious reason implicit in 1...Feel free to regard 8 as you wish.

Depending on how you wish to respond, you may name your opinion of a likely candidate, which party they will belong to, and in what time frame you expect this to come about, as well as reasons (demographic/cultural shifts etc)...please add to this as you see fit...and do keep it civil, please...

I will post my answer tomorrow afternoon, after some thought...

hopefully this will be an illuminating discussion...

[mouchoir]

OK, I thought i'd change the pace up a little bit...we'll see how it goes...

I am curious of peoples' opinions of which of these will acheive the Presidency of the United States first (with the option of why):

1. A Woman
2. An Afro-American Man
3. An Asian-American Man
4. A Mexican-American/Hispanic Man
5. A Foreign-born Citizen
6. A Single Man
7. A Homosexual Man
8. A Muslim


My re-order.

1. A Woman/afro-american woman
2. A Mexican-American/Hispanic Man
3. An Afro-American Man
4. A Single Man
5. An Asian-American Man
6. A Homosexual Man
7. A Muslim
8. A Foreign-born Citizen

Ok. I'm thinking a woman, or an afro-american woman will be the first from your list.

If Hilary Clinton steps up for the 2008 election (depending on if Bush has changed the constitution in order to stand a third term 'you shouldn't change president in a time of war' apparantly) I think she would stand a chance. She's a better looking, more intelligent version of Bill.

The afro-american woman would be down to Oprah deciding to run.

A few years ago I would've gone for no.2 as Colin Powell appeared to have some integrity but that's gone out the window.

A single man only if he is a widower.

A muslim – c'mon, read the papers.

And I can remember reading in the constitution that a foreign born citizen cannot become president. You have to be born on american soil. Which is a damn good thing as that rules out that facist schwarznegger, currently governing california.

[Stelliform]

And I can remember reading in the constitution that a foreign born citizen cannot become president. You have to be born on american soil.

That was going to be my only modification. Before Hillary I would have never thought that a woman would be president so soon. I would have put african american first. But I have seen that things can change drastically during a 4 to 8 year term, so I don't think that any order could be guess with a large amount of confidence.

[skunk]

Afro-American Muslim lesbian in 2012. According to the Mayans, the world will end on December 23rd 2012 anyway, so she'll have her hands full...

[wordmunger]

We've already had a bachelor as president (http://www.picturehistory.com/find/c/352/mcms.html).

Of those choices, I suspect African American man will be first. And he will be a republican.

[Lyle]

I am curious of peoples' opinions of which of these will acheive the Presidency of the United States first (with the option of why):

1. A Woman
2. An Afro-American Man
3. An Asian-American Man
4. A Mexican-American/Hispanic Man
5. A Foreign-born Citizen
6. A Single Man
7. A Homosexual Man
8. A MuslimFor reasons that others have already noted, I just can't imagine any of the last four categories being elected.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that of the categories you proposed, it will be a Mexican-American/Hispanic man. I don't have anyone in mind, it's just a hunch. I seem to be hearing more and more about up-and-coming Hispanic mayors, governors, etc.

As far as women go, the obvious contender is Hillary Clinton, but she is such a polarizing figure I don't see how she could get elected. And other than HRC, I can't think of any other women (Democrat or Republican) who are likely choices, either.

I just don't hear a lot about Asian-American politicians, so I guess I'm having trouble imagining an Asian-American presidential candidate. But if some strong Asian-American candidate emerged I think he would stand a fine chance of winning the presidency.

With African-Americans, it's a touchy situation. It seems like there would have to be a significant shift in how African-Americans pick their leaders. Most of the powerful black Democrats are (often unfairly) perceived by whites as falling into either the "angry Black man" category (e.g. Kweisi Mfume) or the "cartoon character" category (e.g. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) and would have a hard time getting widespread support. On the other hand, a black Republican candidate (e.g. Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, Jr.) would have a tough time getting elected because a lot of the traditional black leadership organizations (such as the NAACP) would demonize him as an Uncle Tom.

It's an interesting question, and I'm looking forward to seeing the other responses.

[Don't panic]

8. as others pointed out, foreign born citizen cannot be elected president unless the constitution is changed.
I am not sure if they can become president if they're next in the line of succession. Are those posts precluded as well? Anyone?

6. I believe Buchanan was single, so there is a precedent. of course the question is still valid. just nitpicking :)

7. I wouldn't bet my farm there weren't closet precedents for this too ;)

I think people would elect a single man if he was a good candidate, and a woman would have a good shot too (especially a republican).
Unfortuantely, I don't think we're mature enough to get a minority in office yet, much less an openly gay person or a muslim

[sorryiwasdreami]

I think it’s possible we have excluded an important choice in the list. Not that any of the listed choices couldn't be this, but a third party candidate would be a valuable addition. For example, the addition of a person on the Libertarian, Green, Reform, Independent, Freedom Socialist Party / Radical Women, Grassroots, etc, etc party, would be fitting.

Of the choices on the current list, I would have to say a woman; and that woman (I agree with others) would be Hillary Clinton. In second place I would say a third party alternative, and after that…single man.

Shamefully, The United States of America is, on the whole, still way too racist and conservative to elect an African, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, or homosexual president. We will sadly keep this mentality for many, many years to come; probably at least a hundred years.

[Sayhey]

We've already had a bachelor as president (http://www.picturehistory.com/find/c/352/mcms.html).

Of those choices, I suspect African American man will be first. And he will be a republican.

There is also speculation about whether Buchanan was gay. We may already have had our first homosexual President and not know about it. If it is true, and there is a great controversy (http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/2458) about such a claim's validity, it is not someone to be very proud about as he was one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had.

I think we may well see a woman as President or Vice-President in the next 4 to 8 years. Hillary is a logical choice, but if Kerry and Edwards win in November and 4 years from now, a strong Edwards ticket in 2012 would be in a position to put a woman and/or a African American or Latino on the ticket. If Kerry and Edwards lose in November, a woman at the top of the ticket or as the VP candidate in 2008 is not unlikely at all.

[IJ Reilly]

A Jewish president was omitted from the list, which is interesting, because had Gore won in 2000, we'd have had our first Jewish occupant of the White House. I have wondered whether Lieberman's presence on the ticket didn't make the difference on the downside for the Democrats in 2000. A great many people would never vote for a Jew, and you don't have to listen very closely to hear it.

[Sayhey]

A Jewish president was omitted from the list, which is interesting, because had Gore won in 2000, we'd have had our first Jewish occupant of the White House. I have wondered whether Lieberman's presence on the ticket didn't make the difference on the downside for the Democrats in 2000. A great many people would never vote for a Jew, and you don't have to listen very closely to hear it.

It is interesting that both Kerry and Wesley Clark have jewish ancestors (in Kerry's case his paternal grandfather) and I expected to see more anti-Semitism on the question of family history in this campaign from rabid conservatives. I'm guessing I'm not reading the "right" sources. Let's hope that it stays out of the race.

[IJ Reilly]

It is interesting that both Kerry and Wesley Clark have jewish ancestors (in Kerry's case his paternal grandfather) and I expected to see more anti-Semitism on the question of family history in this campaign from rabid conservatives. I'm guessing I'm not reading the "right" sources. Let's hope that it stays out of the race.

You should pull on your hip-waders and wander over to the Yahoo message boards sometime. The stuff people spout over there is practically medieval.

[Sayhey]

You should pull on your hip-waders and wander over to the Yahoo message boards sometime. The stuff people spout over there is practically medieval.

I think I'll pass if it's as bad as you say. Do you think we will see some "push polling" from Karl Rove's favorite thug, David Bossie, on the issue? Remember he was the one who had caller's asking about McCain's "black child" in the 2000 South Carolina race. I'm hoping this stays relatively free of this kind of bigotry, but given the history of the Bush campaign (Hitler ads etc.) it's not too likely.

[Frohickey]

I hate hyphenated-Americans. :mad:

[Sayhey]

I hate hyphenated-Americans. :mad:

Frohickey, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you hate the designation of some Americans with hyphenated adjectives.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you hate the designation of some Americans with hyphenated adjectives.

Designation?

I hate the 'need' to have any designation for a hyphenated-American.
You are a citizen, or you have made a sufficient connection with this country and its inhabitants, you are AMERICAN.
It doesn't matter where you came from.
It doesn't matter where your parents came from.
It doesn't even matter if your parents did not come from the same place.

You are AMERICAN, same as me. And being an AMERICAN, same as me, you enjoy the SAME rights and privileges of being one, same as I enjoy the SAME rights and privileges as you do.

Choosing to have a hyphenated designation seems to me to be a desire for additional recognition or status, and as an AMERICAN, I feel that to be undesirable, offensive, and unAMERICAN. Everyone here is EQUAL.

=====

On a different note, why is the ad for Free Screensavers, above, not compatible with Macs? Isn't that a bit inappropriate/misleading for a Mac site?

[IJ Reilly]

I hate hyphenated-Americans. :mad:

The last group you said you hated was "posers." Turns out you didn't have a defensible reason for that hatred, and from what I've seen, you haven't got one for this hatred either.

I'm not a huge fan of hyphenations, but when people do hyphenate, they're usually identifying themselves with an ethnic heritage, not trying to confer a special status upon themselves.

[Sayhey]

Designation?

I hate the 'need' to have any designation for a hyphenated-American.
You are a citizen, or you have made a sufficient connection with this country and its inhabitants, you are AMERICAN.
It doesn't matter where you came from.
It doesn't matter where your parents came from.
It doesn't even matter if your parents did not come from the same place.

You are AMERICAN, same as me. And being an AMERICAN, same as me, you enjoy the SAME rights and privileges of being one, same as I enjoy the SAME rights and privileges as you do.

Choosing to have a hyphenated designation seems to me to be a desire for additional recognition or status, and as an AMERICAN, I feel that to be undesirable, offensive, and unAMERICAN. Everyone here is EQUAL.


My point was that your original post could easily be read that you hate the people themselves. While I agree with your desire for equality, that doesn't mean it exists for all people. We could easily turn this into a thread about how such equality can come about in the real world, not in rhetoric, but that isn't what this thread is about. This is about when the roadblocks for some our citizens will be overcome specifically in case of the office of the President. Perhaps we can confine our remarks to that unless you want to start another thread.

[zimv20]

1. A Woman
2. An Afro-American Man
3. An Asian-American Man
4. A Mexican-American/Hispanic Man
5. A Foreign-born Citizen
6. A Single Man
7. A Homosexual Man
8. A Muslim
at this point, i'm only interested in a president who i feel is acting in the best interests of:
- the constitution
- the constituents
- the entire world

[Krizoitz]

I am not sure if they can become president if they're next in the line of succession. Are those posts precluded as well? Anyone?

No they cannot. Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger would both have been in line for succession had they not been foreign born. The Secretary of State is 4th in line after the VP, Speaker of the House and President Pro-Tem of the Senate.

[blackfox]

OK, first let me address a couple issues brought up..

1)I know the constitution prohibits foreign-born citizens from being President, but there is a decent possibility of that amendment being repealed in the coming years, perhaps a greater possibility than the election of one of the other categories...sorry not to make that clearer.

2)My apologies about the "bachelor" President, I was not aware...

3) I thought about including a Jewish President, but personally I do not make that much of a distinction for Jews in America. This is probably incorrect, but I generally don't make religious distinctions with the people I know...

4) Third-Party Candidate should have been on my list, but I forgot. Guess that shows how much of a chance I feel of that happening...

5)Skunk, you are a smart-a**.

As far as my prediction, I believe that it wil be a woman. There is a possibility that it will be Hillary, but she is a polarizing candidate. There are, however, a great amount of excellent potential candidates to choose from in Politics that are women, more so (imo) than any of the other designations that I listed, and will certainly appeal to a large demographic. I believe this will come about in 2012 (at the earliest), probably 2016. Probably a Democrat.

There is a good possibility of a Hispanic President also, as the associated demographic grows (in number and influence), and I am sure there are decent candidates out there, particularily in the South. Probably a Republican, though could go either way...

There is also a chance of Arrnold becoming President w/ if the constitution was amended, and he does a decent job of Governance in the meantime...I am not holding my breath, though.

[skunk]

5)Skunk, you are a smart-a**.
Aw, shucks! :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

The last group you said you hated was "posers." Turns out you didn't have a defensible reason for that hatred, and from what I've seen, you haven't got one for this hatred either.

I'm not a huge fan of hyphenations, but when people do hyphenate, they're usually identifying themselves with an ethnic heritage, not trying to confer a special status upon themselves.

I don't need a defensible reason for any hatred. I hate terrorists because they smell bad. I hate okra. I hate posers. And I hate hyphenated-Americans.

[Frohickey]

at this point, i'm only interested in a president who i feel is acting in the best interests of:
- the constitution
- the constituents
- the entire world

I would stop at the first two.

The rest of the world can fend for themselves... or they can petition for statehood. ;) :eek: :D

[IJ Reilly]

I don't need a defensible reason for any hatred.

That about says it all... the complete, self-contained excuse for bigotry of all kinds.

[3rdpath]

before this thread gets too "fro-jacked"....

it's funny, my wife and i were discussing this very subject last night. i felt a woman would be president before any ethnic variation male would be elected to office. otoh, my wife felt a woman wouldn't be elected president in our lifetime.

who knows?

i certainly wouldn't have predicted that a doorknob would be elected in 2000...so there ya go. ;)

[Neserk]

I believe a woman will be elected in my life time, I'm 34. I'm guessing she is going to have to be a Republican, though.

[Neserk]

A Jewish president was omitted from the list, which is interesting, because had Gore won in 2000, we'd have had our first Jewish occupant of the White House. I have wondered whether Lieberman's presence on the ticket didn't make the difference on the downside for the Democrats in 2000. A great many people would never vote for a Jew, and you don't have to listen very closely to hear it.


Considering that Gore did actually win the election, I don't think it is an issue ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Considering that Gore did actually win the election, I don't think it is an issue ;)

You know what I mean.

Anyway, I'd have to bet on a woman as president, ahead of any of the other racial, ethnic or religious groups. The numbers are more favorable.

[mactastic]

I'm wondering when we'll have an actual liberal as a president. Is center-left the best we can do? We seem to be ok with uber-conservative, just as long as they promise to be 'a uniter, not a divider' and only renege on that promise once they are selected.

[Neserk]

You know what I mean.



Well, you said that you wondered if Lieberman was part of the reason why Gore didn't win in 2000. But Gore DID win in 2000. So, no, Lieberman wasn't the reason. So, no, I don't know what you mean.

[Frohickey]

I'm wondering when we'll have an actual liberal as a president. Is center-left the best we can do? We seem to be ok with uber-conservative, just as long as they promise to be 'a uniter, not a divider' and only renege on that promise once they are selected.

uber-conservative? Hah... a compassionate conservative is not a conservative. A conservative would be Alan Keyes. A conservative would be Ron Paul. A conservative would be Harry Browne.

As to an actual liberal. We haven't had an actual liberal as President since FDR. And we can't afford another liberal, especially with the current budget deficits and entitlement programs we have now.

[Frohickey]

before this thread gets too "fro-jacked"....

it's funny, my wife and i were discussing this very subject last night. i felt a woman would be president before any ethnic variation male would be elected to office. otoh, my wife felt a woman wouldn't be elected president in our lifetime.

who knows?

i certainly wouldn't have predicted that a doorknob would be elected in 2000...so there ya go. ;)

Hehehe... i like it.

I would gladly vote for Condi Rice for President in 2008. :D :D :D

[Frohickey]

Well, you said that you wondered if Lieberman was part of the reason why Gore didn't win in 2000. But Gore DID win in 2000. So, no, Lieberman wasn't the reason. So, no, I don't know what you mean.

If Gore won, how come every recount of the Florida ballots has always indicated that Bush got more votes.

If you repeat a lie enough times, its still a lie.

[Frohickey]

That about says it all... the complete, self-contained excuse for bigotry of all kinds.

Better than the moral relativism espoused by the left, and how if we can only understand them... :eek:

[zimv20]

If Gore won, how come every recount of the Florida ballots has always indicated that Bush got more votes.

If you repeat a lie enough times, its still a lie.
such as, "every recount showed bush won?"

[Frohickey]

such as, "every recount showed bush won?"

Ah... just refuse to believe it, eh?

Well, there is 'proof' presented with the assertion that Bush won the recounts.

By your logic, 2+2=4 is repeated often enough, that it can't be the truth??? 2+2=4 is not a lie, and is the truth, and its got proof to back it up.

Oh well, I guess its gonna have to be a rematch then. So, when is Al Gore and Joe Lieberman going to supplant Kerry/Edwards as the candidates?

[davecuse]

I would gladly vote for Condi Rice for President in 2008. :D :D :D

I would have to disagree, I don't think I could rationally vote for anyone involved in the current administration. Al Sharpton is my pick! That guy is great.

[zimv20]

Ah... just refuse to believe it, eh?

Well, there is 'proof' presented with the assertion that Bush won the recounts.

the article is here (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html). ignore the headline, different recount methods w/in the article show some gore win scenarios.

i offer the article to counter your assertion that bush won all recount scenarios. that's not true. i'm not really interested in discussing which scenarios are more valid than others.

[Neserk]

If Gore won, how come every recount of the Florida ballots has always indicated that Bush got more votes.


Gore one the popular vote regardless, which would apply to the conversation about individuals voting or not voting for Lieberman because he is Jewish.


If you repeat a lie enough times, its still a lie.


Yeah, I know. It is Bush, etc. who have problems undestanding that they can keep repeating their lies and it doesn't make them anymore true.

[Neserk]

Ah... just refuse to believe it, eh?




Considering Florida gov't wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face, no I have no reason to believe them.

[davecuse]

Considering Florida gov't wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face, no I have no reason to believe them.

The sad truth is, if a lie is repeated enough as a fact it becomes a fact.

[Frohickey]

the article is here (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html). ignore the headline, different recount methods w/in the article show some gore win scenarios.

i offer the article to counter your assertion that bush won all recount scenarios. that's not true. i'm not really interested in discussing which scenarios are more valid than others.

Title of the article is "Florida recount study: Bush still wins"

[Sayhey]

If Gore won, how come every recount of the Florida ballots has always indicated that Bush got more votes.

If you repeat a lie enough times, its still a lie.

This has been gone over a million times. If you read the article zim has posted it will tell you that under the scenario that had been ordered by the Florida courts, for a statewide recount including overvotes, Gore wins the state. Under the conditions of the original Gore protest (limited to four heavily Democratic counties) Bush wins. The US Supreme Court stepped into the case and stopped the counting before that could be done. Absent the decision of Bush v. Gore we have a Gore presidency in Jan. 2001.

[davecuse]

Title of the article is "Florida recount study: Bush still wins"

uh

ignore the headline

[zimv20]

Title of the article is "Florida recount study: Bush still wins"
it's that liberal media, dontcha know. did you read the article?

[Frohickey]

it's that liberal media, dontcha know. did you read the article?

That is the same article that I have included in a different post and different thread when we were talking about the same exact thing, the Gore recount.

[Sayhey]

That is the same article that I have included in a different post and different thread when we were talking about the same exact thing, the Gore recount.

Perhaps you should read it then. Again the study of the organizations involved show that under the conditions of the initial Gore protest, Bush wins; under the conditions of the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court that the US Supreme Court stopped, Gore wins.

[davecuse]

Perhaps you should read it then. Again the study of the organizations involved show that under the conditions of the initial Gore protest, Bush wins; under the conditions of the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court that the US Supreme Court stopped, Gore wins.

It was a shady election, I'm sure that more facts will come out years down the road, and hopefully the truth is exposed.

[Krizoitz]

3) I thought about including a Jewish President, but personally I do not make that much of a distinction for Jews in America. This is probably incorrect, but I generally don't make religious distinctions with the people I know...


While its good to not pigeonhole people based on religious affiliation and stereotypes, I should point out that Presidents and their religion is a significant issue. For one thing it does affect foreign policy (I can imagine a Jewish President making our mid-east foreign policy a little more interesting, not that he/she personally might do anything but there are some hard line gov'ts over there and citizens thereof who might be upset about it). Heck for an example of how religion can be a big deal, look at Kennedy. The fact that he was Roman Catholic as for some reason a huge deal, it shouldn't have been, but it was.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, you said that you wondered if Lieberman was part of the reason why Gore didn't win in 2000. But Gore DID win in 2000. So, no, Lieberman wasn't the reason. So, no, I don't know what you mean.

Gore failed to win by the only metric that actually matters.

The difference was a handful of votes in a handful of states. If even one of those states had gone to Gore, he would have won by the metric that does matter. My point being, it doesn't take many people who'd never vote for a Jewish candidate to make a difference in such a close election, and given that anti-Semitism is very much alive and kicking in the US, I think the Lieberman choice might well have contributed to putting Bush in the White House.

[Frohickey]

Perhaps you should read it then. Again the study of the organizations involved show that under the conditions of the initial Gore protest, Bush wins; under the conditions of the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court that the US Supreme Court stopped, Gore wins.

"Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore."

"Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide."

"Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore."

Hanging by a Chad (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/16/212311.shtml)
"We have all learned about the hanging chad issue. This is a recognized handicap in the punch card method. That is why on each ballot there are clear instructions indicating that the voter should check for hanging chads when he is done voting."

"In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes."

Florida Election Law - 2000 (http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC011.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0101-%3ESection%20011#0101.011)
(4)* If the elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or if it is impossible to determine the elector's choice, his or her ballot shall not be counted for the office; but this shall not vitiate the ballot as to those names which are properly marked, and nothing in this code shall be construed to prevent any elector, at any general election, from voting for any qualified candidate other than one whose name is printed on the ballot.

[Frohickey]

Gore failed to win by the only metric that actually matters.

The difference was a handful of votes in a handful of states. If even one of those states had gone to Gore, he would have won by the metric that does matter. My point being, it doesn't take many people who'd never vote for a Jewish candidate to make a difference in such a close election, and given that anti-Semitism is very much alive and kicking in the US, I think the Lieberman choice might well have contributed to putting Bush in the White House.

Wha?

People vote for the candidate they want. The candidates are what they are, and everyone is given a choice to make, as best as they can make it. Are you saying that the federal government should take the right to vote away from people that might possibly be prejudiced, one way or another?

Start with the anti-Semites.

Then, we'll take it away from racist black people like Spike Lee. Racial Double Standard (http://www.larryelder.com/racial/doublestandard.htm)
"And remember when the Director, warmly and sensitively, explained his feeling toward mixed race couples: "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street."

Next, we'll take it away from women having PMS.
Next, we'll take it away from men in mid-life crisises.

Heck, why not just go full out and take the right to vote away from everyone and just give it to machines instead. (sarcasm_tag)

[Sayhey]

Frohickey,

This is from the article that zim posted and represents where we were headed if the US Supreme Court had not intervened.

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes.

That is the important paragraph. Under that scenario we have a Gore victory of less than 200 votes, but a Gore victory nonetheless. If you want to cite Florida election law you need to include the precedents the Florida Supreme Court used in rendering its position. It might do you some good to also analyze the US Supreme Courts position in Bush v. Gore relative to its own previous rulings. It would show you just how outside the previous precedents the conservative majority reached to put Bush in the White House. Oh, and please leave the NewMax link out next time. It does no good in trying to bolster your argument.

You should also try reading IJ's post again as well. No where does he call for not allowing or not counting votes of anti-Semites. It might disturb a perfectly good rant to do so, but then again sometimes it is best to rant when you have your facts straight.

[IJ Reilly]

Wha?

People vote for the candidate they want. The candidates are what they are, and everyone is given a choice to make, as best as they can make it. Are you saying that the federal government should take the right to vote away from people that might possibly be prejudiced, one way or another?

Start with the anti-Semites.

Then, we'll take it away from racist black people like Spike Lee. Racial Double Standard (http://www.larryelder.com/racial/doublestandard.htm)
"And remember when the Director, warmly and sensitively, explained his feeling toward mixed race couples: "I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street."

Next, we'll take it away from women having PMS.
Next, we'll take it away from men in mid-life crisises.

Heck, why not just go full out and take the right to vote away from everyone and just give it to machines instead. (sarcasm_tag)

This post has not even the remotest connection to anything I said. It is, in fact, an opportunistic smear effort. Yecch.

[/fedup tag]

[Frohickey]

This is from the article that zim posted and represents where we were headed if the US Supreme Court had not intervened.

That is the important paragraph. Under that scenario we have a Gore victory of less than 200 votes, but a Gore victory nonetheless. If you want to cite Florida election law you need to include the precedents the Florida Supreme Court used in rendering its position. It might do you some good to also analyze the US Supreme Courts position in Bush v. Gore relative to its own previous rulings. It would show you just how outside the previous precedents the conservative majority reached to put Bush in the White House. Oh, and please leave the NewMax link out next time. It does no good in trying to bolster your argument.

You should also try reading IJ's post again as well. No where does he call for not allowing or not counting votes of anti-Semites. It might disturb a perfectly good rant to do so, but then again sometimes it is best to rant when you have your facts straight.

I cited the same exact paragraph that you cited, and my analysis of the piece is still the same. If you notice, I followed the progression of the article, and I did not pick a paragraph out of context. The NewsMax link was only because I could not get myself a high-resolution image of the actual Florida paper ballot with the warning/note about inspecting for chads.

Democrats seem to be incapable of leaving the whole Florida vote alone. They lost, even if the SCOTUS did not intervene they lost. The only way that they could win is if a particular Palm Beach standard was applied, and that flies in the face of the actual ballot informing the voter about what constituted a valid vote. And then to heap even more doubt into the mix, there is the paragraph that you cited about overvotes. But overvotes flies in the face of the actual 2000 Florida election law that said overvotes negate the vote for that particular issue/office.

Are you good at the game of Twister, cuz to believe that Gore should have won, you would have to be very good at reaching.

As to IJReilly's assertion, what good is that assertion? Its not like it can be mitigated. Should Gore have picked a non-Jewish Veep? Maybe. Maybe not. You make a choice, you live with them. There is no do over, especially in a high stakes game. I dare you play poker with friends for money, and try and take back your ante when you are dealt a weak hand, lets see how many friends (and what type of friends) you end up having after that.

We have our system of choosing elected leaders. Its got warts, yes. Its not perfect, yes. But nothing is. (Except Keira Knightley :p ) Its the system that we have, and we live with it, and try to make it better, but after 200+ years of tweaking, its pretty dang good.

[Sayhey]

I cited the same exact paragraph that you cited, and my analysis of the piece is still the same. If you notice, I followed the progression of the article, and I did not pick a paragraph out of context....

Reread your post and you will find you do not cite the same paragraph, but leave off just before it. It is the crucial paragraph as I already pointed out, and it is instructive that you leave it out.

I've posted a new thread on this subject if you wish to continue this discussion and not hijack this thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=925452#post925452

...As to IJReilly's assertion, what good is that assertion? Its not like it can be mitigated. Should Gore have picked a non-Jewish Veep? Maybe. Maybe not. You make a choice, you live with them. There is no do over, especially in a high stakes game. I dare you play poker with friends for money, and try and take back your ante when you are dealt a weak hand, lets see how many friends (and what type of friends) you end up having after that.


No one is suggesting that 2000 be done over. Lessons should be learned, including concerning the influence of anti-Semitism that IJ notes. If you have a problem with looking at the role such prejudice plays in how people vote then state it forthrightly and kindly don't distort the posts of others.

[IJ Reilly]

No one is suggesting that 2000 be done over. Lessons should be learned, including concerning the influence of anti-Semitism that IJ notes. If you have a problem with looking at the role such prejudice plays in how people vote then state it forthrightly and kindly don't distort the posts of others.

Thank you. I can only imagine what the motivation might be for attempting such an obvious effort to misdirect this particular discussion. I've got a couple of theories, and since neither one is very charitable, I think I'll keep them to myself.

[Neserk]

Gore failed to win by the only metric that actually matters.

.


No, we were discussing Lieberman's Jewishness and how that effected the election. That only effects the election in actual number of people voted. More people voted for Gore/Lieberman than Bush/Cheyney, so obviously for the majority of voters it is not an issue!

[Frohickey]

No, we were discussing Lieberman's Jewishness and how that effected the election. That only effects the election in actual number of people voted. More people voted for Gore/Lieberman than Bush/Cheyney, so obviously for the majority of voters it is not an issue!

Actually, it affected the election.

Lieberman's jewishness did not convince enough registered voters to GO VOTE IN THE PLACES WHERE IT MATTERED. In California, New York, and other states where Gore/Lieberman won by a comfortable majority, it didn't matter. But if Lieberman's jewishness or Gore's wet-sloppy Tipper-kiss were able to convince enough registered voters to go vote in the battleground states of Florida and others, then the election would have been won.

Majority of votes matters to a degree, within a state. Where the votes are at matters as well.

[Neserk]

Actually, it affected the election.

.


the affected/effected thing has driven me crazy for years. Anyone have a way to remember when to use which one?

I also get stuck on rather and whether...

[IJ Reilly]

the affected/effected thing has driven me crazy for years. Anyone have a way to remember when to use which one?

I also get stuck on rather and whether...

An effect is to change something. An affect is to influence feelings or emotions. So the election was effected, but how people felt about it is an affect. I'd rather not try to decide whether this is an important difference.

[Neserk]

An effect is to change something. An affect is to influence feelings or emotions. So the election was effected, but how people felt about it is an affect. I'd rather not try to decide whether this is an important difference.


hmmmmmmm....

[skunk]

hmmmmmmm....
To effect something is to bring it about.
To affect something is to influence it.

[Neserk]

To effect something is to bring it about.
To affect something is to influence it.


no wonder I'm confused. This reminds of when I was in 8th grade and studying algebra for the first time. My dad was trying to explain to me why I couldn't add apples and oranges. I said: of course I can 7 apples + 5 oranges = 12 pieces of fruit! So he had to switch to oranges and camels! *then* I understood it ;)

IOW, the above defintions seem very similar to me... that must be why I'm confused!

[skunk]

Easy mnemonic:
To effect = to put into effect.

Maybe no easier. Sorry :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

Easy mnemonic:
To effect = to put into effect.

Maybe no easier. Sorry :rolleyes:

I think we should just lose one of them and use "effect" for both!

[IJ Reilly]

IOW, the above defintions seem very similar to me... that must be why I'm confused!

They are fairly similar in usage, but not the same. The way I keep them straight to think of affect/affection. Same root word. If human feelings or emotions are involved, it's an affect. Otherwise, the correct word is nearly always effect.

[Neserk]

They are fairly similar in usage, but not the same. The way I keep them straight to think of affect/affection. Same root word. If human feelings or emotions are involved, it's an affect. Otherwise, the correct word is nearly always effect.


SO how has it affected the election?

If I think of affect as emotion or related to I have no problems, it is the "nearly always" part that messes me up...

[IJ Reilly]

SO how has it affected the election?

It hasn't. The election is a thing, so it can be "effected" but not "affected."

Right off hand, I can't think of a proper use of the word "affect" that doesn't involve a human response or characteristic.

[zimv20]

It hasn't. The election is a thing, so it can be "effected" but not "affected."

Right off hand, I can't think of a proper use of the word "affect" that doesn't involve a human response or characteristic.
sorry man, but i'm not digging your defintion.

imo, 'affect' is nearly always correct, even in: "the rain affected the election."

though 'affect' is a transitive verb, i look at 'effect' as "more transitive," and use it only when something "effects a change." for example:

"i used a gun to affect the election outcome"
"i used a gun to effect a change in the election outcome"

of course, we're talking only about verbs. the noun is always 'effect'.

i say: when in doubt, use 'affect.' if the words "a change" are in there, use 'effect.'

[Neserk]

sorry man, but i'm not digging your defintion.

imo, 'affect' is nearly always correct, even in: "the rain affected the election."

though 'affect' is a transitive verb, i look at 'effect' as "more transitive," and use it only when something "effects a change." for example:

"i used a gun to affect the election outcome"
"i used a gun to effect a change in the election outcome"

of course, we're talking only about verbs. the noun is always 'effect'.

i say: when in doubt, use 'affect.' if the words "a change" are in there, use 'effect.'


AGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[IJ Reilly]

I was trying to keep it simple. Now see what you've done!

[zimv20]

AGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
indeed

try this:
"i'm going to affect the election" means you're going to influence it

"i'm going to effect the election" means you're in charge of making sure it happens

[IJ Reilly]

"i'm going to affect the election" means you're going to influence it

Yes, but afterwards, can the same person say, "I affected the election"?

Wouldn't that be, dare I say it, a form of affected speech?

[zimv20]

Yes, but afterwards, can the same person say, "I affected the election"?
if they also influenced the outcome, then certainly yes. otherwise.... possibly...


Wouldn't that be, dare I say it, a form of affected speech?
if they're from the east coast but speak in a texas drawl, then, yes!

[Frohickey]

the affected/effected thing has driven me crazy for years. Anyone have a way to remember when to use which one?

I also get stuck on rather and whether...

Time for another one of Frohickey's dictionary definitions. :p

affect (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=affect)
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar.
2. To act on the emotions of; touch or move.
3. To attack or infect, as a disease: Rheumatic fever can affect the heart.

effect
1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.
3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.
5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.
6a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama.
6b. A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness.
6c. Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.
7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect.
8. effects Movable belongings; goods.

[Frohickey]

we were discussing Lieberman's Jewishness and how that effected the election.
That only effects the election in actual number of people voted.

The way I read it, using effected means that Lieberman's Jewishness made the election possible, which is clearly not true. Lieberman jewish or non-jewishness has no effect (noun) on the election. It might affect (verb) the election.

Also, effects in the sentence above is incorrect. Effects (noun) is a noun; affects (verb) would be the correct word, since in the above sentence that is what is missing in the sentence. Sentences, at least complete sentences, requiring a noun and a verb.

I thought you were supposed to be a teacher?!! :eek:
Who would have thought that a lowly electrical engineer would be instructing a teacher on the difference between affect and effect. Next thing you know, we would have artsy-fartsy artists trying to tell engineers how to design computers. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[skunk]

we were discussing Lieberman's Jewishness and how that effected the election.
That only effects the election in actual number of people voted.

The way I read it, using effected means that Lieberman's Jewishness made the election possible, which is clearly not true. Lieberman jewish or non-jewishness has no effect (noun) on the election. It might affect (verb) the election.

Also, effects in the sentence above is incorrect. Effects (noun) is a noun; affects (verb) would be the correct word, since in the above sentence that is what is missing in the sentence. Sentences, at least complete sentences, requiring a noun and a verb.
Is this supposed to help??? Give the poor girl a break! :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

I thought you were supposed to be a teacher?!! :eek:
Who would have thought that a lowly electrical engineer would be instructing a teacher on the difference between affect and effect. Next thing you know, we would have artsy-fartsy artists trying to tell engineers how to design computers. :eek: :eek: :eek:


LOL. I am a teacher. That doesn't mean I know *everything.* Almost, but not quite ;) Teaching isn't about having all the info, anyhow. It is about being able to instruct. Since I don't instruct anyone above the age of 9 (usually) I don't need to know the difference between affect and effect :p And from what I can tell most people don't. :D

[Neserk]

Is this supposed to help??? Give the poor girl a break! :rolleyes:

I took it as a joke ;) But if it isn't than :mad:

And thanks Skunk :D

[IJ Reilly]

"Effect" has both a verb and noun tense. "Affect" does also. So it is not simply a parts of speech issue.

[skunk]

The main effect of his obviously affected concern was to adversely affect his credibility and make it more difficult to effect any effective changes.

PS "Affect" as a noun is virtually obsolete.

[Neserk]

PS "Affect" as a noun is virtually obsolete.

Not in Psychology it isn't ;)

[skunk]

Not in Psychology it isn't ;)
Ah! I stand corrected. :rolleyes:
I'd forgotten about that, in effect.

[Neserk]

Ah! I stand corrected. :rolleyes:
I'd forgotten about that, in effect.

:D

Okay, I think I have this figured out.

wait... now I lost it... :o

[zimv20]

The main effect of his obviously affected concern was to adversely affect his credibility and make it more difficult to effect any effective changes.

skunk's got it right. leave it to the english to teach us americans a thing or two about, well, english.

notice his use of effect, as a verb, had to do w/ effecting change.

[letterbox]

artsy fartsy artists do play a part in designing computer.

hello, mr. jobs meet mr.ives
hello world, meet iMac

[Neserk]

Okay. let's see if I understand it *now*

Effect: to change something, a catalyst, if you will.

Affect: to alter something, slightly, effect but to a lesser degree.

I still say we should use affect for emotion and effect for everything else. The above are so close they might as well be the same thing *sigh*

Anyone want to tackle "whether" and "rather" ???

I did finally figure out then and than around the age of 30 :rolleyes: I just had to have it explained correctly: Then is about time, than is a comparison.

[zimv20]

Effect: to change something, a catalyst, if you will.
i would say it has more to do w/ creation than change

[skunk]

Anyone want to tackle "whether" and "rather" ???
I'd rather not, but where's the confusion?

[Neserk]

I'd rather not, but where's the confusion?

Ever heard a Southern Accent? My parents are from the south (Virginia, Applachian mountains) but raised us in the Midwest (Michigan). Some how the "hearing" southern and having a Mid Western Accent I can't tell the two apart when I'm writing or speaking. My brain is mixed up! Before I learned to read "towel" and "tail" were the same word to me. This is a similar problem I've yet to be able to straighten out.

Edit: wow I'm tired!

[Neserk]

i would say it has more to do w/ creation than change


Okay, so Effect: to create something
Affect: To change something

How is that?

[skunk]

Okay, so Effect: to create something
Affect: To change something

How is that?
You're almost there! :D

Effect: to make something happen

[Neserk]

You're almost there! :D

Effect: to make something happen

affect, to influence something to change
effect: to make something happen (okay, I'm quoting, but I still think I understand it).

Rather and Whether anyone?

[skunk]

affect, to influence something to change
effect: to make something happen (okay, I'm quoting, but I still think I understand it).
You got it!

Rather and Whether anyone?
Being English, I'd rather discuss the weather...

[IJ Reilly]

Being English, I'd rather discuss the weather...

Not that it's ever helped.

[zimv20]

Being English, I'd rather discuss the weather...
what's the best way to get from london to birmingham? clapham, specifically.

;-)

[Sayhey]

My Little, Brown Handbook has a glossary of usage that puts it this way.

Usually affect is a verb, meaning "to influence," and effect is a noun, meaning "result": The drug did not affect his driving; in fact, it seemed to have no effect at all. But effect occasionally is used as a verb meaning "to bring about" : Her efforts effected a change. And affect is used in psychology as a noun meaning "feeling or emotion": One can infer much about affect from behavior. p 728

Confusing enough?

Back to the topic of the thread. The rumors are flying about GOP nervousness concerning Cheney's effect on the ticket's chances. This is reflected in the Newsweek (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm) poll that has a Bush/Powell ticket winning while Bush/Cheney loses to Kerry/Edwards. Not that I'm advocating Powell jump into the fray (I don't believe he'd do it,) but on the outside chance it happens the answer to the threads question could be revealed much sooner than we think.

edit: sorry, got the name of the poll wrong - same link

[zimv20]

poll that has a Bush/Powell ticket winning while Bush/Cheney loses to Kerry/Edwards.
let's play GOP strategist for a moment. lets say bush, cheney and powell are all on board. how to play it and when?

for the "how," i'd have cheney have a heart incident. he's survive it, but a doctor would order bed rest / reduced stress. in the interest of serving his nation, cheney would step down (bush: "i accepted his resignation today... great man...", blah blah blah).

then what's the succession rule? bush would appoint someone, right? would it be powell straightaway, or someone else, giving them time to
1) check the polls, and
2) do a VP "search"

it's the timing i'm unsure about. do it now and give people a chance to get used to it, or spring the surprise later?

[Sayhey]

let's play GOP strategist for a moment. lets say bush, cheney and powell are all on board. how to play it and when?

for the "how," i'd have cheney have a heart incident. he's survive it, but a doctor would order bed rest / reduced stress. in the interest of serving his nation, cheney would step down (bush: "i accepted his resignation today... great man...", blah blah blah).

then what's the succession rule? bush would appoint someone, right? would it be powell straightaway, or someone else, giving them time to
1) check the polls, and
2) do a VP "search"

it's the timing i'm unsure about. do it now and give people a chance to get used to it, or spring the surprise later?

I agree that it would have to be done under cover of health concerns for Cheney. If Bush dumps him either before or after the convention it is a disaster for his chances. Assuming Powell (McCain or Giuliani is the other names mentioned) would go along with this it has to be before the convention to not look too contrived. Of the three, my bet is only Rudy would possibly go along. McCain hates Bush and Powell would have to have the dismissal of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neocons at the minimum. Not likely. Besides I think Cheney would have to decide on his own to leave. Bush doesn't have what it takes to get rid of him

[blackfox]

With regards to the last few posts (not involving definitions), I was under the impression that Powell, Rice and an assortment of other high-level officials were leaving if Bush continued on into another term? Am I correct? (I remember reading something somewhere...) Anyone know?

Anyway, I agree with Sayhey, that Powell would most likely turn down the job, or demand dismissal of DoD staff (Rummy and Wolfy), which makes him an unlikely choice. I also agree with Sayhey's take on McCain...I was not aware of Guiliani being in the possible running. Still, this really comes down to Cheney...who many see as the real power in the WH. I cannot see him or GW for that matter, backing down, now that they have come this far...I expect the ticket to remain unchanged...

Zim, your theory as to how it might go down is spot-on, though...has there been a precedent for a last-minute VP replacement in an Election before?

I just wonder the potential for backfire, if GW on the campaign trail keeps trumping Cheney's superiority to Edwards (with regards to experience, etc.) only to replace him at the last minute, rendering all arguments moot...

[IJ Reilly]

Zim, your theory as to how it might go down is spot-on, though...has there been a precedent for a last-minute VP replacement in an Election before?

George McGovern replaced Thomas Eagleton as his VP candidate very shortly before the convention in 1972. We know how that worked out.

[Sayhey]

George McGovern replaced Thomas Eagleton as his VP candidate very shortly before the convention in 1972. We know how that worked out.

It was a long time ago, but correct me if I'm wrong, it only takes the ok of the party's national committee to replace someone who drops out. Of course there are individual state deadlines for the printing of the ballot, but those can be challenged quickly in court. I doubt anyone would seriously stand in the way of a replacement candidate. Unless the deadlines are passed and it is tranparent that it is for purely political reasons. Even then a court is going to lean in favor of the party replacing a candidate (think New Jersey in 2002.) With Eagleton it was shortly after the convention so no deadlines were in question.

[IJ Reilly]

With Eagleton it was shortly after the convention so no deadlines were in question.

After? I thought it was right before the convention.

[Sayhey]

After? I thought it was right before the convention.

No, I believe it was after the convention, but I'll look it up.

edit: yes, Eagleton was nominated at the Convention, July 10 -13, and Shriver replaced him later. I'm still looking for a date when Shriver was put on the ticket and how it was done.

1972 Democratic Convention (http://politicalgraveyard.com/parties/D/1972/index.html)

edit: Eagleton withdrew on July 31, 1972 - so a little less than three weeks after getting the nomination.

link (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0816534.html)

edit: both parties bylaws now allow the DNC or the RNC to fill any vacancies on the national ticket. In the case of the RNC it is Rule 9 (http://www.gop.com/About/default.aspx?Section=16). So that would be who would make the formal decision on a replacement if Cheney left the ticket after the Convention. Of course, the reality is they would rubber stamp whoever Bush wanted.

In 1972 I'm sure that it was the same procedure, but I've yet to find an account that outlines the history of the event other than the dates I've already listed.