My America!

[[AK]Nuts]

Get your shirt now!

[Pixelsponge]

yeah, because all that red voted 100% for bush

[[AK]Abaddon]

Does it say that? The point is that Bush won in the vast majority of counties across the U.S. That's a fact.

When I look at the map and realize it was still a somewhat close election. it's frightening ... those few large urban areas that voted to elect Kerry can almost hold sway over the rest of the U.S. I definitely don't want Boston, New York City, or San Francisco to decide priorities for the rest of the country.

[[AK]Squidly]

I wish someone would help me understand the mind of the liberal voter. The only ones I can get to talk are the conspiracy theorists and hyperbolists. (Hallibruton! Bush Knew! Bushitler!)

For all the derision from the left about Bush voters being stupid holy roller chimp enablers, I had hoped I could get one or two to talk to me about why they think their version of things is better, and smarter. Seems to me like most of them believe in "magic".

[Pixelsponge]

I believe it does say that. Not everyone in those red areas voted for bush, not everyone in the blue areas voted for Kerry, this shirt I feel is misleading. And I feel if the majority of the people in this country vote for a certain Candidate weather those majority live in the urban populate cities on the coasts, then that should be the way things go. The majority rule, and right now the majority voted for Bush, but I don't think things should be about location, just numbers.

[[AK]The Beast]

I'd agree with that, Pix. IMHO, the electoral college is an institution whose time has passed. The POTUS is the one office that is supposed to represent us all, and thus everyone's vote should count the same (i.e. strict popular vote to elect the President). Local areas still have a congressman and each state still has two senators to look out for local interests.

Of course, seeing as how it'd take a constitutional amendment to change, that's never going to happen in our lifetime.

[[AK]Abaddon]

Although Bush still won the popular vote, I am very thankful for the Electoral College. The issues of the cities can be decided within the cities ... but whenever the Dems gain power, they start enforcing city values nationwide. A prime example of this (one I care deeply about) is gun control.

It's fine with me if the voters of San Francisco, New York City and Boston want strict gun control laws. They live in a different environment. But watching Clinton and his (initially) Democrat congress roll over for Handgun Control every time they wanted a gun ban bill passed turned me off the Donkey party forever. Clinton's anti-gun executive orders didn't help either.

It's too bad there's not a viable third party that believes in ALL individual rights. I don't have deep feelings one way or the other on the gay marriage issue or abortion ... but the Dems never fail to launch a full assault on the Second Amendment whenever they are in control.

I think gun owners in the last few elections have been a potent force against the Dems. We have long memories.

[Pixelsponge]

on a side note, that shirt is just ugly, I wouldn't wear something so poorly designed, even if it said the opposite.

[[AK]Hylander]

It's too bad there's not a viable third party that believes in ALL individual rights. I don't have deep feelings one way or the other on the gay marriage issue or abortion ... but the Dems never fail to launch a full assault on the Second Amendment whenever they are in control.

This isn't aimed at you Ab.. but I do laugh at some hypocrisy that is thrown around by those who call for a third party from time to time. Especially when they cry that Bush did not have a "mandate" because he didn't have the majority of vote in the first election. Well, if there were a viable third party, the chances are a candidate will NEVER have a majority of vote - so does that mean a President will never have a mandate again if they got their wish?

BTW - I'm a very strong local/States rights advocate, so I have no problem whatsoever with the electoral college.

[[AK]Squidly]

The electoral college is still a good idea. I am against one or two population centers deciding an election all by themselves.

But people will continue to carp about the EC whenever their candidate loses...I understand that.

And yeah, the shirt is ugly. The libs have all the good designers.

[Pixelsponge]

Why are you against one or two population centers deciding an election if the majority of americans lived there?

[[AK]Nuts]

My dad thinks that one day the U.S. will be broken large autonomous city-states because the views of rural america clash with those of urban america.

[[AK]Squidly]

I'm opposed to allowing one or two populations centers to decide things for everyone because there are LOCAL issues nationwide. Things that might be important to cityfolk may not be important to those in the country, and vice versa. Burning issues for those in Manhattan may be an anethma to those in Atlanta.

Then there are the social issues. What seems like a really great idea for a group in San Fran may not be the will of great geographical swaths of the nation.

I like the fact that Dirtwater USA has a say and their voices won't get drowned out completely by the big cities. I like that Middletown won't automatically get pushed around and marginalized by the urban elite.

Nor has anyone provided me with a compelling reason WHY THEY SHOULD.

[Pixelsponge]

Because there are more of them... that is the plain and simple answer. The majority of Americans should set policy at the national level. Certain issues should be state issues, and certain issues should be city controlled... how you draw those lines is another matter. But right now we are just talking about the election of the president.

[[AK]Nuts]

It's more to what the U.S. was supposed to be like. For too many years we've given more and more power to the Federal Government. Of course like all bureaucracies, the Federal Governments sole purpose is to continue to exist and grow. (I think Ronald Reagan pointed that out years ago).