If you're American, and don't live in Ohio.....
-
I'm a new American (ex-pat Brit) and I studied heavily for my citizenship exam (which turned out to be rather simple) so of course I voted. I have to believe (1) my vote could make a difference, and (2) having learnt about American politics, I should join in.
Great! ...and welcome to America! :)
-
Good for you. It's fun to see states try to fix what the feds fuck up.
lewax00 wrote:
("usage by children ages 12-25 will double!").
So? :doh:
Exactly. Here's the break down as I see it: 21-25: It would be legal for them, so who cares (also: not children) 18-20: I don't really care if they do, they're old enough to make a decision and take the legal risks (also: still not children) 12-17: I'm guessing the above two groups will more than double, making a very small growth here (finally made it into the children range!), plus they get the benefits of the tax.
-
Glad to see another foreigner uninformed as shit about American political initiatives aside from Obama. Without looking up, would you be able to name a current Governor of any state? Caring about just the Presidency is idiotic. You are aware that many laws (not even elected offices) are put up to the public to vote on? I guess I'm glad you wouldn't be voting, if given the chance, because you are uninformed. [^] Even in my state, one of the bluest in the country, there are initiatives on the ballots: [^]
-
:thumbsup: They actually aired a radio programme today (Radio 1) where they asked British people if they would be voting and who they would be voting for. It was shocking how many people replied obviously believing they could vote in the American Election. I blame it on the amount of coverage it's getting over here. I hope :^)
TPFKAPB wrote:
It was shocking how many people replied obviously believing they could vote in the American Election.
And yet only 17 people in the whole of Britain know they can vote for the police head bloke thing a week on Thursday. Half of those standing for election don't even know about it.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
-
Glad to see another foreigner uninformed as shit about American political initiatives aside from Obama. Without looking up, would you be able to name a current Governor of any state? Caring about just the Presidency is idiotic. You are aware that many laws (not even elected offices) are put up to the public to vote on? I guess I'm glad you wouldn't be voting, if given the chance, because you are uninformed. [^] Even in my state, one of the bluest in the country, there are initiatives on the ballots: [^]
I believe that Pompey's thread, as indeed his earlier on the subject, were satires on both the ridiculous levels and lack of worthwhile content of the coverage the British media gives to the US elections.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
-
:thumbsup: They actually aired a radio programme today (Radio 1) where they asked British people if they would be voting and who they would be voting for. It was shocking how many people replied obviously believing they could vote in the American Election. I blame it on the amount of coverage it's getting over here. I hope :^)
TPFKAPB wrote:
I blame it on the amount of coverage it's getting over here.
I'd bet 99% of Americans could not name the UK's current PM. In fact, I'd bet 99% of Americans could not name the PM of any country.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
-
TPFKAPB wrote:
It was shocking how many people replied obviously believing they could vote in the American Election.
And yet only 17 people in the whole of Britain know they can vote for the police head bloke thing a week on Thursday. Half of those standing for election don't even know about it.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
-
I've lived in what I refer to as a "shaved monkey" constituency all my life, but still go out to vote. Shaved Monkey Seat: A constituency where the incumbent party could let a shaved monkey in a suit become its candidate and still win the election. There is more chance of the ghost of Jimmy Savile getting elected in my constituency than a Conservative Party candidate
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
I believe that Pompey's thread, as indeed his earlier on the subject, were satires on both the ridiculous levels and lack of worthwhile content of the coverage the British media gives to the US elections.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
-
I believe that Pompey's thread, as indeed his earlier on the subject, were satires on both the ridiculous levels and lack of worthwhile content of the coverage the British media gives to the US elections.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
ChrisElston wrote:
I believe that Pompey's thread, as indeed his earlier on the subject, were satires on both the ridiculous levels and lack of worthwhile content of the coverage the British media gives to the US elections.
FTFY The US media (already horrible) is at its worst during a presidential election. Makes me X|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
-
TPFKAPB wrote:
I blame it on the amount of coverage it's getting over here.
I'd bet 99% of Americans could not name the UK's current PM. In fact, I'd bet 99% of Americans could not name the PM of any country.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
That is actually understandable though, considering the sheer geographic size and clout that America carries. I think if I was American I wouldn't give a shit who was the British PM either, in fact I would probably wonder why they needed a PM as they have a Queen.
-
Hmm, I guess why would one expect the British media to provide quality coverage of American elections? I do see your point, and his point now, if it really is a comment regarding the British media focusing solely on Ohio.
I typed a long and informative, as well as witty, reply but then the computer ate it. Basically the British media is spending a massive amount of time, money, and energy covering the thing with every news outlet having reporters all over the states, with live broadcasts coming from there, but none of it covers anything other than Romney v Obama and trying to find where the key vote will be cast. No-one over here has much interest, the result will effect us - the US is that important, but it's not something we can do anything about, just let us know what is going on, and tell us the result. If they are putting that much time and effort into reporting, they could at least try some worthwhile and in depth reporting.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
-
Glad to see another foreigner uninformed as shit about American political initiatives aside from Obama. Without looking up, would you be able to name a current Governor of any state? Caring about just the Presidency is idiotic. You are aware that many laws (not even elected offices) are put up to the public to vote on? I guess I'm glad you wouldn't be voting, if given the chance, because you are uninformed. [^] Even in my state, one of the bluest in the country, there are initiatives on the ballots: [^]
As Chris said, it was intended in jest. If you watch the news over here you would think whoever Ohio votes for will be President.
wizardzz wrote:
Without looking up, would you be able to name a current Governor of any state?
You know I thought I could, but I checked before I posted so as not to look stupid and it turns out I would have looked stupid. I'm actually reading an interesting book at the moment written by a British man living in the States, who thinks the anti-amercanism in the world is unwarranted and tries to redress it. A lot of it explains amongst, other things, your enthusiasm for the elections. We wouldn't put up with the blanket coverage and recorded phone calls, etc over here.
wizardzz wrote:
I'm glad you wouldn't be voting, if given the chance, because you are uninformed.
I don't vote for this precise reason.
wizardzz wrote:
there are initiatives on the ballots:
See this I didn't know so glad I posted now.
-
I'm a new American (ex-pat Brit) and I studied heavily for my citizenship exam (which turned out to be rather simple) so of course I voted. I have to believe (1) my vote could make a difference, and (2) having learnt about American politics, I should join in.
-
I typed a long and informative, as well as witty, reply but then the computer ate it. Basically the British media is spending a massive amount of time, money, and energy covering the thing with every news outlet having reporters all over the states, with live broadcasts coming from there, but none of it covers anything other than Romney v Obama and trying to find where the key vote will be cast. No-one over here has much interest, the result will effect us - the US is that important, but it's not something we can do anything about, just let us know what is going on, and tell us the result. If they are putting that much time and effort into reporting, they could at least try some worthwhile and in depth reporting.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
A local bar posted a warning on facebook: "Hey guys we will be watching the election coverage tmrrw and a French TV Crew and a maybe this Tokyo-based team will be filming people. So if you enter you, you might be filmed. We will be ordering pizzas and $3 craft beers will be in effect. See u then. Keep Your Fingers Crossed!" So yeah, foreign media is everywhere, without any real focus.
-
I came over on a vacation visa in 1988. I got a work visa the next year, married an American girl (why I'd come over in the first place), went to Holland on a business trip and was not allowed back into USA (because technically I was an intended immigrant on a non-immigrant visa). Stayed outside the USA for some time while it got sorted out, came back in on a Humanitarian parole, got my Green Card and settled down. Then in 2002, decided to become a citizen before they threw me out (my job had changed, so the reason for the work permit was no longer valid, and I'd got divorced, so that was no longer a valid excuse). I more-or-less did the whole thing on my own. Researched what was needed, filled out the appropriate forms, paid the fees, got my fingerprints taken, had a background check run, studied the Federalist Papers and other references about America's history and political system, took the test, changed my name (from Ian Armstrong-Dennis back to its original form), took the pledge of allegiance (on the first National Citizenship day - 9/17/2002) and am now an American - as much so as the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers.
-
I came over on a vacation visa in 1988. I got a work visa the next year, married an American girl (why I'd come over in the first place), went to Holland on a business trip and was not allowed back into USA (because technically I was an intended immigrant on a non-immigrant visa). Stayed outside the USA for some time while it got sorted out, came back in on a Humanitarian parole, got my Green Card and settled down. Then in 2002, decided to become a citizen before they threw me out (my job had changed, so the reason for the work permit was no longer valid, and I'd got divorced, so that was no longer a valid excuse). I more-or-less did the whole thing on my own. Researched what was needed, filled out the appropriate forms, paid the fees, got my fingerprints taken, had a background check run, studied the Federalist Papers and other references about America's history and political system, took the test, changed my name (from Ian Armstrong-Dennis back to its original form), took the pledge of allegiance (on the first National Citizenship day - 9/17/2002) and am now an American - as much so as the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers.
-
I typed a long and informative, as well as witty, reply but then the computer ate it. Basically the British media is spending a massive amount of time, money, and energy covering the thing with every news outlet having reporters all over the states, with live broadcasts coming from there, but none of it covers anything other than Romney v Obama and trying to find where the key vote will be cast. No-one over here has much interest, the result will effect us - the US is that important, but it's not something we can do anything about, just let us know what is going on, and tell us the result. If they are putting that much time and effort into reporting, they could at least try some worthwhile and in depth reporting.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
ChrisElston wrote:
the result will effect us - the US is that important,
Out of curiosity: 1. Will the average Brit's day to day life REALLY change due to who is serving as POTUS? 2. Do Brits REALLY believe that there is that big of difference between Obama and Romney? The two candidates and their parties sure talk a good game but history tells us otherwise...
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
-
ChrisElston wrote:
the result will effect us - the US is that important,
Out of curiosity: 1. Will the average Brit's day to day life REALLY change due to who is serving as POTUS? 2. Do Brits REALLY believe that there is that big of difference between Obama and Romney? The two candidates and their parties sure talk a good game but history tells us otherwise...
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
1. Day to day, no. But the actions of George W and his lapdog Tony still have ramifications for us. 2. Romney is presented as a retard who doesn't know anything outside of America, baptizes dead people, and said the UK would be shit at hosting the Olympics. Obama is presented as a cool, black dude.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
-
I always hear and read a lot of clamoring about the electoral college being antiquated yet I don't get it. Maybe the failure is that people think the U.S. is a democracy and it isn't, and it never was. It is a hybrid between a democracy and a republic in order to address the short-comings of each and highlight the strengths of both. If I were to address the flaws in the electoral college, I would suggest, that instead of it be winner take all as it is in most states, that the vote be broken up by district. Then there would be no more battleground States and every State and every district would be important. Imagine, how some States feel because they just don't matter in an election. Or worse, imagine living in Florida and having the entire region shut down repeatedly during elections because of "Presidential Security".
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
The problem there is some districts, like one in my state, would become an even more insane battleground. It would actually make most states and districts matter even less, not more. (This is the problem with going with just the popular vote; it would effectively disenfranchise small and low relatively populated regions.) I like the electoral college because it reinforces the concepts of federalism. One compromise would be to mesh the two; each state would receive two plus the number of districts electoral votes. Two votes would be winner takes all, the remainder would be proportioned state-wide (not by district to avoid the above problem.) Then again, as a federalist, I think a lot of these problems would become non-issues if the federal government had less power--why corrupt a congress person if he or she has no real expansive power?