Defending the Truth

So then who ended the cold war??? While the educated in this country and in the rest of the western world were saying that the Soviet Union was all powerful, Reagan was saying that it had flaws. While the Soviets were broadcasting to the world their power, repressing solidarity in Poland, and invading Afghanistan, Reagan was saying that their last pages were already being written.

The educated elite, and the media all said that Reagan was a fool. He called the Soviet Union an evil empire, and they went beserk. Only after the fall of the Soviet Union did the dissidents say that finally a western leader said what they had known all alone. Gorbachev wanted to save communism and reform the USSR, not lead over its demise.

If not Reagan then whom??? Hell, even Margaret Thatcher realized what Reagan had done, without a shot ever being fired. Quit trying to rewrite history. Accept the fact that the liberals and the idea of appeasement were failures and that by engaging the the Soviet Union in an Arms Race and by standing up to them at the negotiating table, Reagan greatly increased the rate of their demise.

dmk

Srg, just because the electoral college was put in place to give the states a say on who gets elected does not make in right. The majority is the deciding factor in congress, the house, and the state government. Making laws and worrying about who is the governor is their business. You are someone who takes the side of the government, no matter what the issue. When Bush said there were WMD in Iraq, so did you. He changed his story and said there were none and you said you never said there were any. Please view this statement form a none bias point of view for a second. Your political convictions are so getting in the way of your common sense!
Everybody has there own opinion. Our's differ, but do not make it sound like I don't have a clue. I realize that the way the system is is the law of the land. I am speaking up because it needs to be changed. I do not think there are many supporters of your veiw on this. Most people really do feel that the majority should decide, because this is really the only fair way! The states should not have a say in our presidential election process. This just gives advantage to richer states. You are probably for the tax cuts that the government gives rich people because you get one of those tax cuts. This way of thinking is also why you take the stance on the electoral college that you do. Yours is a vision of granjeur for the elite. Mine is a vision of equality. With the electoral college in place, as it is, our country is catering to the big companies, big wigs, and rich state govenments. Those big tax cuts were a pawn move for Bush. He has found a way to pay off the electoral rich states to gain there support. If you think that is fair then we'll just go ahead and put you on that capitalistic, self centered, you are holier than us, list, that is in all our heads.
I am sure you will continue to claim this system is right the way it is. Anybody here agree with srg on this? Let's see just how alone on this stance you are huh? I know you are going to think what ever you have been brainwashed to think anyway, I just thought you might get some prespective this way.

It was a crumbling economy that brought down the cold war. When you spend all your money on military and not enough on the people of the country chaos follows (America take heed or you too will be standing in long lines for bread and TP).

The fact that Reagan brought us to the point where we blow up the world 5 times over with nukes was just pointless. Nothing but a foolish waste of resources.

Reagan was probably "losing it" way before the public knew what was going on. It does go to show how have much television has changed politics though. Good acting can go a long way.

You are missing the point..."The Arms Race!"

US and Soviets, competing in the greater military force. Sure Reagan brought us up to the point where we could blow up the world 5 times over with nukes...but the Soviets simply did not have the funds to keep up. Sure the thought of Star Wars was something that we could only dream of...but it sure did scare the Soviets.

If I don't have the funds to keep up with another country in an arms race, and have the possibility of a Star Wars program that blocks my nukes, of course i'm going to lose support and collapse. Common Sense!

I don't think the liberals peace movement made the Soviet Union collapse If it did, maybe you can help explain how?

The failure of the Soviet Union ultimately came from within. People are only going to accept political views forced down their throats for so long. The U.S. did everything in its power in the Cold War, but I think ultimately, the Soviets were already headed for political and social failure.

So if I am alone in my stance than so be it. Do you really think that it bothers that others do not agree with what I believe. If you do, you are sadly mistaken.

The reason I support the electoral college is because I believe that it is the best system for ensuring the citizenry of this country have an equal say in the election.

As far as WMD, the world said it was true. And to this day, you will not get me to change my mind. I say the weapons that were captured during the Persian Gulf war, and I have followed the reports of people who have been on the ground. Just because the weapons are not in the quantity that people would like, components of those weapons have been found.

Once again I will maintain my position that we are not a democracy so the majority should not determine who wins the election. We are a republic, and as such it should be determined by which candidate wins the most number of the 50 states. The electoral college is what accomplish this task. That way it ensures a state like Rhode Island is as equal as a state like California. Once again we are a republic made up of the 50 individual states, and in this republic all the states are equal. That is why the electoral college works and works the way it does. It grants no more power to the people of one state over the people of another state.

I am sorry but despite your claim it is not about equality. Clearly you fail to see this. Once again the needs of the people of Kansas or Missouri differ greatly than the needs of the people of California. Since California is more populus should their people thus dictate who leads this country??? No, they should not. The electoral college places the needs of all states equally. Your method would give more weight to the more populus states. It would give more power to the urban centers over the rural areas. Perhaps if more people took the time to understand why the electoral college is important, and paid more attention in civics class we wouldn't have the need for this discussion.

As far as Bush bribing the electoral rich states, check again. Of the top six electoral vote states, Kerry took 4 of them, including the number one state. California alone accounts for almost 1/5 of all the votes needed for election.

You have yet demonstrate to me how your method is more equal. You have shown no apparatus to distinguish between the different needs of the different regions of this country. You answer is that by counting everyones vote and going off the total it is more fair. I say what is more fair in this republic is which candidate has carried more states.

The needs of the people from state to state are different, the electoral college recognizes this, you system does not.

dmk

It is pretty simple, if the electoral votes elect someone different from whom the majorities picks, then it is not working like you say.
The electoral college is divided unfairly, at the least. Nothing you say can change these facts.

Electoral Process = mis-appointment.


On another note: Have a great Holiday!!

No it is not divided unfairly. It grants 2 votes to each state automatically, and the remaining votes are then determined by population. Hence the reason California has 50 some votes and Missouri 9.

Majority wins = mobocracy.

dmk

Yeah but it does seem unfair if only 1% of Californians turn out to vote, but 99% of Missourans turn out...

Perhaps the electoral college votes should be changed to reflect actual voter turn out.....