4LOVE said:

Those counties in California don't represent even close to the most populous. The popular vote still stands.

Moonbeam said:

Correct

icenine...i am really suprised and saddened at your manipulation of the truth...


you are doing exactly what you complain the two major parties do: manipulate the truth into a tidy soundbite...


and i thought u were better then this...whats with you lately guy? are you that wanting of attention?

And Bush may have won the counties, but that means that he may have won anywhere from 51-100% of the vote in that county. In a big chunck of the counties with higher populations the Bush win was closer to the 51% mark.

SkletonKee said:

I haven't manipulated anything... I just posted various statistics that I found... this was done for the pure fun of it and I did not manufacture anything, nor have I misquoted anything in these posts in any way.

How would you say that I have manipulated the truth?

I am curious about this, as I did not create the statistics, nor did I write the text of the posts, thus their being in quotation marks.

SkletonKee said:

That map is not fabricated. I saw it right after the election. It reveals a truth that has been evident for a long time- Republicans tend to be victorious in more rural areas, whereas Democrats tend to win the more urban areas. The demographics of this country are such that the population is densely clustered in certain areas and relatively sparse elsewhere. The blue is a fairly good indication of population, in all honesty.

IceNine said:

so, your telling me it wasnt your intention to post the map and demographics to persuade people to think that Bush was indeed the winner of the popular vote?

Moonbeam said:

i know the map isnt fabricated...however, to have this map displayed with a disclosure "NOW --- WHAT'S THIS ABOUT A POPULAR VOTE?" is an attempt to manipulate facts to make it appear that Bush was the possible victor in the general election...


i can quarentee the kicks who posted this (on whatever site it originated from) intended other hicks to believe this..and i guarentee there are a bunch of stupid hicks believing that Dubya did win it!!

SkletonKee said:

I think IceNine was just posting this for the fun of it, as he said. He isn't a Bush fan or a Gore fan. During the election, I was in Indiana (very Republican) and a lot of people used this as justification for Bush's victory. Some of those counties in Wyoming have less than a thousand people!

SkletonKee said:

As the citation stated, the text of the first post came from www.boortz.com...

The map is from USA Today

I did not write anything at all, I just posted things that had been written already.

It is not nice to characterize those who do not agree with you as hicks, as these people are very smart and vote for the people that they feel will do the best job. The person who wrote the first post on here is a Libertarian and does not care for either Bush or Gore, he was just making a point.

The same can be said for me... I am a Libertarian and I do not care for either the Republicans or Democrats.

I intended to counterbalance some of the overwhelming Democratic bias on this site by producing some information from sources other than Democrats. I think that this is a very healthy exercise.

So, as we all know, I am a Libertarian who believes that the Democrats and the Republicans are the same party and I do not see anything wrong with posting information that is NOT slanted to the Democratic side for once.

EDIT: and it is very fun!

:LOL:

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 29 19:56:18 PST 2002 by IceNine]

IceNine said:

Damn, that's fucked up. Just like I suspected, the majority of America is brainwashed/braindead. Hopefully, in the next two years they'll wake up and smell the doo doo.

SweeTea said:[quote]

IceNine said:

If Al Gore runs again, the public will definitely be smelling some shit!

:LOL:

IceNine said:

i am going to stick with my hick statement...ive worked within the political system..i have campaigned numerous times and ive actually worked for a couple campaigns...you and i both know that these types of propaganda is created to sway the less than intelligent voter..the one that actually makes his or her decision based on soundbites, horrid hate campaign commercials or text form the likes of www.boortz.com. moonbeam gives testimony to these occurrences in his previous post...

and while i understand that there are unintelligent people who make voting decisions based on ill received information, i would rather engage them in serious discussion and thoughts...by doing something like this, while an attempt to share an opposing view that is not the norm for the org, you are pandering to what is wrong about our electoral system..

why not create a thread sharing your views and opinions? why not create a thread showing how the electoral system works? instead, you stopped down to the level of us republicans and democrats...even though you say you despise us...

SkletonKee said:

The fact is that this is how politics works in America... I do not like it and I do not support it, but it is a WHOLE lot of fun posting from the opposing point of view!

I would just like to say that I posted this for the exact reason that I stated... there is a TREMENDOUS amount of Democratic bias on this site, so I thought that it would terribly fun to post something counter... and it has worked as I wished it would.

I have posted Libertarian ideas many times, but nobody seems to want to discuss ideas... they like to discuss "conspiracy" or "vote fixing" or possibly "election stealing." This is nothing new and it is the foundation of the media in this country.

I understand that there are a great number of very stupid people in both the Republican AND the Democratic parties, so I don't think that generalizing and saying that these people (Republicans) are stupid is a fair thing to say, as neither party has the market cornered on stupidity.

I would be happy to discuss issues from a Libertarian standpoint, as I have before, but as I said, nobody really cares to discuss things and tightly ingrained political ideologies of BOTH Republicans and Democrats and their mutual hatred for each other make all political topics break down to black and white. I believe that there is no black or white... all politics is a shade of grey and the Republicans and Democrats are basically the same.

In short, Democrats are not smarter than Republicans, nor are they nicer people.

IceNine said:

And Gore still won the popular vote? What a man.

Of course, these are the most tendancious stats you can give. Conservative candidates do better in non-urban counties, which explains the low crime rates. Rural counties naturally amount to more square miles, but less population per county. The result is the above. It's quite telling that the whole state population is quoted once it's "won" instead of the votes, n'est-ce pas? .

Aerogram said:

True enough

By the way... something that I do find interesting is that this topic has been rated zero stars with two votes and it is a topic that shows a side opposite of Democratic propaganda, whereas all Democratic propaganda gets rated 5 stars.

This is the kind of thing that I find funny.

:LOL:

Once again, I am not a Republican and I do not support the Republican party.

IceNine said:

ohh..by all means, i am not saying that democrats are smarter...heck, im one of them dumb democrat...and if you had posted an indepth story about how Gore helped create the internet..i would have objected and said, "stop posting propaganda"...

i think im pretty consistent with my hate towards propaganda...im the one that hates on all the religious spamming around here...

and sure, people here at the org like their political discussions sauced up...but, does that make it alright? after all, they are just a reflection of our society...you being someone who is turned off by our current political system should care about that...and try and wake people up...

and that is my complaint about liberatarians and other third party groups..you like to stand on the sidelines and act hollier then thou..rather then getting in the mudd and changing things...

SkletonKee said:

Oh, but I am not holier-than-thou... I am just engaging in some fun activities... I do not attempt to convert people on here and I NEVER say that my views are better than anyone else's, as you know.

In order to be holier-than-thou, one must arrogantly state that their view is much better than the views of others. While I believe that the Libertarian viewpoint is the better viewpoint, I do not discount the views of others, as that would be arrogant. It is also useful to note that there are a great number of people who are Republicans and Democrats and adhere to their thinking... it is not my place to tell them that they are right or wrong in their political leanings or ideologies.

I feel that a great many people are Republicans or Democrats based on tradition and upbringing though, whereas my membership in the Libertarian Party was one of conscious choice, as I had never heard of the Libertarian Party when I was a kid. I would hope that people would vote their conscience and not follow party lines, but that is not the case in most instances. Many people will just go in and vote straight-ticket. As I have mentioned before, I will vote against a Libertarian candidate if another candidate seems to be a better match with my ideology.

Arrogance and being holier-than-thou comes in statements such as "those stupid Republicans" or "those dumb ass Democrats" rather than an understanding of the issues at hand. I think that you will find that I am not guilty of either arrogance or a holier-than-thou attitude.

EDIT: I must point out that there are a good number of people out there who were raised either Democrat or Republican and have changed parties as a conscious choice. I have respect for anyone who holds their political convictions as a matter of personal choice rather than political upbringing.

....
[This message was edited Tue Oct 29 20:29:37 PST 2002 by IceNine]

IceNine said:

fair enough...and i know your just having fun...but, come on now...this is the place that birthed nep2unes...now ya know someone that dumb will take this sh*t, run with it and believe it...i can think of another person that has been following you around her damn head...its sad to think she would run to work tomorrow preaching "see, i told you Bush really won..i saw this map online...and it showed he really won the election...uh hu, uh hu!!"

act like you know


one to won
[This message was edited Tue Oct 29 20:35:15 PST 2002 by SkletonKee]

IceNine said:[quote]

SweeTea said:

:LOL: Al Gore is definately not what this country needs. In my opinion, this country needs a Liberal female president. It's time for a change. I nominate -- ahhh Cyndi Lauper!

Republicans and Democrats... what's the difference, really? We're all being played by a thesis-antithesis two-party system. They BOTH get what they want in THE END, and we're decieved into thinking that they are representing us and our wants.

It doesn't really matter who voted for whom in the last presidential election.The thing that matters now is,who will we vote for in 2004? I'm afraid of what will happen if Bush wins another four years.The only reason Bush gets high approval ratings is because of 9/11.But once people start focusing on our damaged economy and the fact that our surplus is gone,he will have a tough time convincing people to re-elect him.

I wish we had some more Democrats with a backbone! Ever since Clinton left office,these Dems act like they're afraid to challenge Bush and his stupid policies.I hate the Republican Party,but I gotta admit,at least they know how to attack the other side (remember how they fought with Clinton over EVERYTHING?) Maybe we should bring Barbra Strestand into the Democratic Congress,so she can kick some ass and tell it like it is!

Oh these vast right wing conspiracies continue... I disagree with the map, fucking USA Today and their maps!


Number of elections given 2 them from their brother and the Supreme Court:

Bush: 1
Gore: 0

IceNine said:

I smell conspiracy...

IceNine said:

About the statistics: Possible, why not? American people wanna go to war, and somebody has elected W into office. And its the rural people who are most likely to do so... thats like that everywhere in the world..

About IceNine: I remember you flaming me really bad a couple of months ago for a large number of statistics on the US I put up a few months ago...
[This message was edited Wed Oct 30 3:23:56 PST 2002 by soulpower]

My feeling is,we should have DISCARDED all of the votes in Florida.There was something really fishy going on in that state.The Governor of Florida is Dumbya's brother?? Many people were "turned away" from casting their votes?? Many ballots were disqualified from being counted?? The news media reported early on that Gore won Florida,then Bush was seen telling reporters "Not so!" as if he was so sure there was a screw-up somewhere?? Is it all just a coincidence?

We should have either cancelled the Florida votes altogether,or held a new election in that state (this time under close scrutiny).Of course,Bush and the Republicans would have been totally against this idea.It would have messed up their "scheme" to get elected.
[This message was edited Wed Oct 30 4:14:23 PST 2002 by DavidEye]
[This message was edited Wed Oct 30 4:15:36 PST 2002 by DavidEye]

soulpower said:

These stats, as I already pointed out, are misleading. This can happen in Canada too, because most of the population is along the St Lawrence river, the Great Lakes and the coasts. A rural/urban difference in voting can make the narrow strips one colour and the rest of the country another, but that doesn't take away fropm the fact that the great majority of the population lives in the narrow strips. And of course, a comparison of the crime rates will show a sharp difference. If you decide to count the population of whole provinces that were won by one party or another, you will also make the endorsement much more dramatic.

While the stats themselves are correct, their selection and presentation are designed to boost the appearance of Bush support and distract from the fact he did not get the most votes.

Aerogram said:

Actually, the only stat that truly reflects anything of significance is that Gore won the popular vote by a miniscule .005%...a "statistically meaningless number"...a microscopic one half of one percent more than Bush...yet Gore(or democrat) supporters convienently overlook and ignore that stat in favor of presenting the far more positive stat of "Gore got half a million votes more than Bush did!!"...why is that??...Because they want to present the margin of "popular vote victory" in a "pro Gore" way...and it's definitely done in that manner to "distract" from the fact that the number of votes Gore got over Bush is so microscopic as to hold no meaning or value whatsoever...none...It would be like two marathon runners in a 50 mile marathon finishing one hundreth of a second apart, and someone trying to say that one runner was "clearly" faster than the other...please...

Not to mention that both Gore and Bush ran their presidential campaigns not to win the popular vote, but to win the electorial vote...the results of the presidential election were based on both candidates trying to achieve one goal, and we're (in hindsight) judging the results on another goal entirely...and while, yes, it's extremely rare for the winner of the electorial vote to not also win the popular vote, the extreme closeness of the electorial count between Bush and Gore was indeed reflected in the extreme closeness of the popular vote between the two men...their campaign strategies would have been significantly different if their only goal was to win the popular vote...clearly it wasn't...we should stop acting like it was...

Gore's "clear" win of the popular vote does not in any way provide clarity as to which way the country's desires were leaning...it's not an indication that the country "wanted" Gore over Bush, yet it's constantly presented that way, and without anyone around here crying "foul" and harping on about a misconstruing of stats to make it seem like something it's not...

wellbeyond said:

but winning a popular vote by even 1 vote allows the victor this claim...to call a majority vote "microscopic" is discrediting the results...no?

to be honest..i think the majority of americans have moved on from this...no Democrat or Gore supporter I know is running up and down the halls screaming, "500,000 votes!!! 500,000 votes"...

all this was drudged up because more and more people seem unhappy with Dubya performance...and instead of discusssing and debating our current political problems, people would rather discuss past presidents or the election...






e to the d to the i to the t
[This message was edited Wed Oct 30 8:50:53 PST 2002 by SkletonKee]