What's new
By:

A Romney/Biden Presidency?

kennykyle said:
Ive always thought the President should have a VP of a different party just to play the devils advocate.
Click to expand...

I'd possibly even add a couple cabinet ministers to that. For example the V.P, Education, VA, Transportation and HUD be dissenting voices. That way you have a better feel for America and not just your half.
 
That would be way interesting. The best part of a tie in the electoral college is that in the House/Senate votes for President and Vice President the states would have equal voting power.
 
nightmare3983 said:
That would be way interesting. The best part of a tie in the electoral college is that in the House/Senate votes for President and Vice President the states would have equal voting power.
Click to expand...

That is why I hate the E.C. Why should the same 10ishs tates every year weigh so much heavier? Why must it always be Ohio and Iowa? Why not N. Dakota and Conneticut?

I get that is becuase those states have a more even divide politically but just make it popular vote and call it a day. That way the candidates ahve to court America and not 10 states. You will see them in places like California, Utah, Texas, Missouri, Tennesse and Washington as well.
 
kennykyle said:
Ive always thought the President should have a VP of a different party just to play the devils advocate.
Click to expand...


It's happened before. Lincoln booted Hannibal Hamlin in favor of Democrat Andrew Johnson in his second term who was a strong supporter of the Union.
 
Stoked said:
I'd possibly even add a couple cabinet ministers to that. For example the V.P, Education, VA, Transportation and HUD be dissenting voices. That way you have a better feel for America and not just your half.
Click to expand...

Apparently Obama agrees with you.
 
One Brow said:
You mean "did", right? Last I heard, Gates (defense) and LaHood (Transportation) were Republicans.
Click to expand...

By "does" I meant believe that a dissenting voice can be a good thing. You were talking about the act of appointing them. I was talking about the belief.
 
Stoked said:
By "does" I meant believe that a dissenting voice can be a good thing. You were talking about the act of appointing them. I was talking about the belief.
Click to expand...

You think Obama may have appointed Republicans and also thought they were not worth listening to?
 
One Brow said:
You think Obama may have appointed Republicans and also thought they were not worth listening to?
Click to expand...

Ugh. By appointing them it indicates that he "does" believe that a dissenting voice is good. So using the word "does" is correct here.

Putting he word "did" in my statement indicates that he no longer has that belief. Again I think you are talking about the act of appointing them and I am talkign about the belief in dissenting voices.

You are smarter this and as such I am taking this as an attempt to troll and will ignore it in the future.
 
Stoked said:
Ugh. By appointing them it indicates that he "does" believe that a dissenting voice is good. So using the word "does" is correct here.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that the "if" was unnecessary. Obama's actions demonstrate that he values dissenting voices, so we don't have to wonder "If he does".

Also, you mentioned "I'd possibly even add a couple cabinet ministers to that. " Obama did (as in "did add cabinet members", not "does add cabinet members" when he may never add another one).
 
One Brow said:
Apparently Obama agrees with you.
Click to expand...

Stoked said:
Nice shameless plug for your guy. If he does than good.
Click to expand...

One Brow said:
I was just pointing out that the "if" was unnecessary. Obama's actions demonstrate that he values dissenting voices, so we don't have to wonder "If he does".

Also, you mentioned "I'd possibly even add a couple cabinet ministers to that. " Obama did (as in "did add cabinet members", not "does add cabinet members" when he may never add another one).
Click to expand...

At the time of my "if he does" no proof had been supplied so the "if he does" was appropriate. Again I was talking about the belief and not the act.
 
Stoked said:
At the time of my "if he does" no proof had been supplied
Click to expand...

I think his point was that you were apparently totally unaware of the party affiliation of the cabinet appointments. Gates was specifically a holdover from the Bush administration.

However One Brow is only half right here given that Gates is no longer secretary of Defense and was replaced by a Democrat (Panetta). LaHood is still in the cabinet.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I think his point was that you were apparently totally unaware of the party affiliation of the cabinet appointments. Gates was specifically a holdover from the Bush administration.

However One Brow is only half right here given that Gates is no longer secretary of Defense and was replaced by a Democrat (Panetta). LaHood is still in the cabinet.
Click to expand...

I get that but still do not see a problem with the way I worded it. One brow is just trying to knit pick
 
Stoked said:
I get that but still do not see a problem with the way I worded it. One brow is just trying to knit pick
Click to expand...

I do pick the occasional nit, but that was not my intention here. I was trying to respond to to one part of your post "I'd possibly even add a couple cabinet ministers to that." by pointing out that Obama had already done that, and you seem to have read me as responding to some statement of belief, as opposed to an action that could be taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top