New topic
PrintableDavidEye said: 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] I agree wholeheartedly with what should have been done. The amount of chaos and lost votes, invalid votes, votes not counted, but a certification of the votes counted by harris and Jeb Bush when Bush reached a majority after the military votes were counted in that election in Florida was a 100% disgrace to your country. The entire world was watching how your "democratic" system was based on nothing but lose sand. Instead you have a Supreme Court with political conservative judges such as Scalia that uphold an anti-democratic 18th centruy system, because the people are not allowed to change the constitution or the alleged meaning of it. To them the constitution is like the Bible, don't you dare doubt the meaning of the words of the founding fathers and try to change them. The president is elected by the electoral college, not by the people. - [This message was edited Wed Oct 30 9:02:11 PST 2002 by Abrazo] You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee 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? Um, no...lol...for starters, the popular vote, even if won by "one vote", does nothing to allow any candidate to claim to be the victor...only the electorial vote does...and secondly, the comments on this thread were about the presentation of stats and the agendas behind how they're presented...so I commented on that...that this supposed "obvious" and "clear" popular vote by Gore was anything but, considering how microscopic the margin was (and yes, it was truly microscopic...one half of one percent can't be considered anything else)...my point (and I do have one..lol...than you, Ellen..) is that nobody seems to give a shit when the presentation of stats favors a democrat...you only see howls and rants around here when it favors a republican...it's hypocritical. 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"...
The dems you know must not be members of P.org...lol 
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...
Actually, from what I can tell from reading this thread (and others), this thread was brought up because one stupid "conspiracy theory" thread after another saying Bush and Bin Laden were playing hackysack together as the planes crashed into the Twin Towers were being posted, along with any and all anti-Bush rhetoric that could be drudged up on the internet, regardless of it's validity, regardless of how honestly and evenhandedly it presented the facts, and regardless of what the agenda was behind doing so...it only became an issue on this thread when the same thing was done in a positive light towards Bush... Hope that ends the confusion... 
...same edit as it ever was....same edit as it ever was... [This message was edited Wed Oct 30 9:10:12 PST 2002 by wellbeyond] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Bump!
Discuss, please...  SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
wellbeyond said: Aerogram said: 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.
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... On that same note, keep in mind that Kennedy beat Nixon by a mere 151,000 votes (or something like that)! Therefore, it does matter! Could u imagine how the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been handled under Nixon. Nuclear war would have been his only answer...and it would have all been on tape!  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorwellbeyond said: Aerogram said: 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.
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... I didn't say that Gore's win was clear. I said the stats are selected to give as much weigth to Bush as possible. When you look at the map, you see a sea of red, yet the real results are that it was a tie, Gore winning slightly more votes. As for the Electoral College, you know what I think of that. It's highly unusual for a presidential "winner" to lose the popular vote. And since winning the popular vote in various states is what determines the composition of the Electoral College, I don't think it's very relevant to the debate over these stats... EXCEPT to highlight how an outdated institution can be used to legitimize undemocratic results.
Sure, Gore's "win" was microscopic, but what if it had not been and the Electoral College would still have selected Bush? How is that s great result in a democracy? Would you put up with that situation for several terms? I don,t think so. There would be a movement to get rid of the college because it consistently selected candidates who lost the popular vote and made an even bigger farce of democracy. If Gore's win was minuscule, Bush's connections to the main authority figures of the Florida dramedy were staggering. We all know who they are -- Katherine Harris and the the Bush friendly Supreme Court judges. Harris participated in Bush fund raisers, and some of the judges had a vested interest in ruling in favor of a conservative candidate whose daddy had helped make the court what it is today. We always hear that the USA is such a great country because anyone can become president. In this case, priviledge won, "one person one vote" lost.The fact Gore's win was so slim doesn't excuse dismissing this most essential democratic principle... certainly not to reward priviledge again. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It was tie, by all measures, and since we can't have two presidents, and since the Republican won, all the socialists are going to bitch and moan.
More important, I think, is the mere fact that it was a tie. It being a tie indicates how poorly either candidate was at differentiating himself. Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wellbeyond said: SkletonKee 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? Um, no...lol...for starters, the popular vote, even if won by "one vote", does nothing to allow any candidate to claim to be the victor...only the electorial vote does...and secondly, the comments on this thread were about the presentation of stats and the agendas behind how they're presented...so I commented on that...that this supposed "obvious" and "clear" popular vote by Gore was anything but, considering how microscopic the margin was (and yes, it was truly microscopic...one half of one percent can't be considered anything else)...my point (and I do have one..lol...than you, Ellen..) is that nobody seems to give a shit when the presentation of stats favors a democrat...you only see howls and rants around here when it favors a republican...it's hypocritical. 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"...
The dems you know must not be members of P.org...lol
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...
Actually, from what I can tell from reading this thread (and others), this thread was brought up because one stupid "conspiracy theory" thread after another saying Bush and Bin Laden were playing hackysack together as the planes crashed into the Twin Towers were being posted, along with any and all anti-Bush rhetoric that could be drudged up on the internet, regardless of it's validity, regardless of how honestly and evenhandedly it presented the facts, and regardless of what the agenda was behind doing so...it only became an issue on this thread when the same thing was done in a positive light towards Bush... Hope that ends the confusion...
...same edit as it ever was...same edit as it ever was... [This message was edited Wed Oct 30 9:10:12 PST 2002 by wellbeyond] Poor conservatives, While liberals arrogantly monopolize the Org, conservatives have to make do with dominating the corporate, financial, legal and media outlet spheres. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ice, I really respect you, and I think the Libertarians have some great ideas. Problem is, the Libertarians are an incredibly unorganised party. If they could get their shit together, they might actually be a powerful threat to the Republican and Democratic agendas. What can be done to make this happen? I'm about to take off for the day, but I would love to hear your views on this. 
Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. (Ecclesiastes 7:9) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JediMaster said: Ice, I really respect you, and I think the Libertarians have some great ideas. Problem is, the Libertarians are an incredibly unorganised party. If they could get their shit together, they might actually be a powerful threat to the Republican and Democratic agendas. What can be done to make this happen? I'm about to take off for the day, but I would love to hear your views on this. I'll answer this (being a libertarian myself)...yes, they don't command a lot of respect from the media and the voters...their message, while correct, has never been clear enough or digestible enough for the mainstream. They get distracted by irrelevant issues instead of appealing to the big issues like taxes, and when they do talk taxes, they don't understand that the argument for tax-cuts is economic growth and not all their side-arguments...and then there's the internal schisms...there are a lot of anarchists and other wackos in the party. I'm a libertarian in principle, but as a party, we suck as bad as the rest of them.Fear is the mind-killer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
teller said: It was tie, by all measures, and since we can't have two presidents, and since the Republican won, all the socialists are going to bitch and moan.
More important, I think, is the mere fact that it was a tie. It being a tie indicates how poorly either candidate was at differentiating himself. It was a scam, that's what it was. You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said: teller said: It was tie, by all measures, and since we can't have two presidents, and since the Republican won, all the socialists are going to bitch and moan.
More important, I think, is the mere fact that it was a tie. It being a tie indicates how poorly either candidate was at differentiating himself. It was a scam, that's what it was. So... you wouldn't have considered it a "scam" if the recount of "dimpled chads" and "hanging chads" would have boosted Gore to a victory? What about the alledegly "confusing" ballots? Come on now... Democrats are acting like this was a giant scam and all that, but if the situation was EXACTLY reversed, they would claim it was justice. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: ?
Come on now... Democrats are acting like this was a giant scam and all that, but if the situation was EXACTLY reversed, they would claim it was justice. assumptions...not worth anyones time..beside, you know what happens when you assume.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: IceNine said: ?
Come on now... Democrats are acting like this was a giant scam and all that, but if the situation was EXACTLY reversed, they would claim it was justice. assumptions...not worth anyones time..beside, you know what happens when you assume. Come on, my friend... you KNOW that I am right about this... If the situation was exactly reversed, the Republicans would be crying foul and the Democrats would be saying that the decision was fair. We know that this is the truth. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: Come on, my friend... you KNOW that I am right about this... If the situation was exactly reversed, the Republicans would be crying foul and the Democrats would be saying that the decision was fair. We know that this is the truth. you know, if i agree...they take away my democrat card... *they* are always watching...  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: IceNine said: Come on, my friend... you KNOW that I am right about this... If the situation was exactly reversed, the Republicans would be crying foul and the Democrats would be saying that the decision was fair. We know that this is the truth. you know, if i agree...they take away my democrat card... *they* are always watching... :LOL: Okay, I won't press the issue! SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: Abrazo said: teller said: It was tie, by all measures, and since we can't have two presidents, and since the Republican won, all the socialists are going to bitch and moan.
More important, I think, is the mere fact that it was a tie. It being a tie indicates how poorly either candidate was at differentiating himself. It was a scam, that's what it was. So... you wouldn't have considered it a "scam" if the recount of "dimpled chads" and "hanging chads" would have boosted Gore to a victory? What about the alledegly "confusing" ballots? Come on now... Democrats are acting like this was a giant scam and all that, but if the situation was EXACTLY reversed, they would claim it was justice. In the exact same situation (and I mean EXACTLY the same, from chads to having a chief electoral officer who fundraised for Gore), I would be sympathetic to Bush's challenge. I feel the American electoral and legal systems are too vulnerable to partisan politics. In Canada, it would be unthinkable that the chief electoral officer would be someone who fundraised for one of the candidates. Our electoral system is also deeply flawed, but when there's a vote counting problem, there's no big noise about the electoral officer being in bed with one of the candidates. You guys sort of paid the price for not making enough effort to shield the processors from the influence of the processed. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |