When Will Obama's Wave Crash?

Wow...and all this time, I've been disobeying God because I've not been fighting the scourge of abortion the way Aaron says to. Is God not big enough to use different people on different fronts, in different ways?

Remember, you heard it here: I am not doing it right, because my method of serving God is different from Aaron's. Funny, though....God hasn't gotten the memo yet that He's been leading me wrong.

Maybe there's room to fight abortion on more than one front.

And just maybe we we should get out of the business of condemning others when their service to God looks different that ours.

 

It doesn't matter what I do or don't do. The issue is this is how it would be if we truly saw the unborn child in the same way we saw infants and toddlers.

 

It's easy, but admirable, to champion the cause of the unborn child whose life is terminated in the womb. What about the innocent Iraqi civilian killed in the war that we are responsible for? What about the innocent man on death row? What about all those frozen embryoes that result when a couple tries In Vitro Fertilization as a solution for their inability to have a child? All of these are also examples of taking the life of someone. God is concerned about the sanctity of all life, not just the unborn.

 

For the record, I agree with you. But, to claim that just because someone in my party say they are against abortion doesn't fly with me anymore. It way too easy for tham to say that then do nothing after they get our vote. There are a lot more issues than just the abortion issue when selecting a President. As I said on another post, I'm tired of the Republicans(my party) saying this just to appease the Christians.

 

God's Word says they are anything but innocent.

 

Neither are you. Should we execute you too?

 

Um, because it is the US Constitution, you think just maybe?

Wonderful document, that is the basis for the United States of America! Ya' might wanna' read it sometime.

Regardless of what you or I may think about any particular "candidate", the Constitution provides us the right to vote by popular vote only for our Representatives in Congress, ever since the adoption of the Constuitution in 1788, and for our Senators since 1913.

I'm afraid there are a couple or four unspoken misconceptions you happen to hold regarding the office of the President, as well as the nation. The first is the idea that the United States is a 'democracy', somehow. Not so. Not now; not then; not ever intended to be. Our nation, as we know it, is a Constitutional, federal, representative republic, since June 21, 1788, effective 1789. (Prior to that from 1777, we were a 'Confederation' of states.)

The second is that we somehow elect a President of "America". Again, not so. He is the President of the United States of America. All 50 of them.

The third, which you did speak of (and here correctly, I would add) is that the "Electoral College" 'puts the President in office'. Exactly! Only the (currently 538) Electors have a vote for the President, according to the Constitution. (You and I are afforded no vote for President in any way, by the Constitution.) This number of 538 is equal to the number of Senators (100) and Representatives (435) of all the states plus 3 for the District of Columbia. And the number for any state is equal to the number of Senators and Representatives for that state. KY, my state has 8 votes, for example. CA has 55. Both these are consistent with the population of the two states, as of the 2000 Census. (I wonder if either includes illegal immigrants, here, but that is for another time.) All KY's 8 electors (and the 55 of CA) will be awarded to the person who receives the largest number of popular votes in the November election, and the same thing is true in DC, and every other state except for NE and ME, which award two Electoral votes statewide, and the remainder by Congressional District. (BTW, some in CA have proposed the so-named NE plan be adopted there, as well, recently, as well.) I'm fully in favor of that plan being an option to any state that so chooses, but not that it be mandated, as certain proposals have recently been put forth, FTR.

Every state has directed to have the 'popular vote' be the manner of choosing the electors, who then elect the President. And that is how your and my vote 'counts' for President.

Finally, let me say that there is not "an (1) election" that will occur on Nov.4, 2008, but "51 elections" in 50 states and DC.

End of class, Civics 101 for Mar. 8, 2008.

"Class, there will be a test!"

[Edited to add] FTR, and to clear up one misconception, Al Gore did not receive a majority of the popular vote over George Bush for President in 2000, despite the number of claims that that was the case, although he did receive about 540K more popular votes than did President Bush. Nader received over 2.8 M votes; Buchanan received almost 440K; and assorted "Others" received over 610K votes. Over 3.9M votes were cast for candidates other than President Bush and VP Gore, or more that 7 times the number of the difference between the two "major party" candidates.

'Professor' Ed

 

Aside from my previous post and the one of righteousdude2, somehow the last three pages of this thread bring to mind the old bumper sticker of 40 years ago I once saw, which read

Ed

 

An excellent point. Vice President Gore won a plurality of the vote.

President Bush in 2004 was the first presidential candidate to receive a majority of the popular vote since his dad did so in 1988.