No Gore in '04

[IslandBreeze]

Originally posted by Morat
Yes. The comprehensive one ordered up by several media groups in tandem showed that Gore had quite a few more votes. Leastwise, more people got up there and tried to vote for Gore than Bush. Nor am I discussing "butterfly ballots" but simple overvotes where Gore was marked, then a second minor candidate. (Not that I think 3000 elderly Jews were attempting vote for Buchanon. Nor do I consider the scrub lists in Florida ethical, or legal. Jim Crow is quite alive in Florida.) Here


The last line is rather clear. I don't argue that Bush isn't President. I will state that Gore got more votes, as it's utterly true.

The biggest irony of all, of course, is comparing the Florida election system and the "equal protection" rationale applied by the US Supreme Court in their majority decision. Under that reasoning, not only was Florida's entire election illegal and invalid, but so was every other state's. After all, if not having a uniform standard from county to county on what is a clear vote (the reason the Supremes ended it), then certainly not having the same voting machines in every county, as well as the same ballot structure, is an equal protection violation. Different machines have different error rates (punch cards have an error rate roughly 10 times higher than optical scans), and rather obviously some ballot designs caused more miscast and thrown out votes than others.

Given that people's intended voting desires aren't uniform (that is, you cannot claim that a punch card machine in county X will throw out as many votes for Candidate A as B, because simple geopolitical makeup means that counties can and do tend to clump for a party or candidate. As noted in Election 2000, where punch card machines (with their higher error rate) existed almost solely in counties that were heavily Gore, whereas almost all the optiscan machines (lower error rate) were in Bush counties).

But, I repeat, I don't claim Bush isn't the President, or that he didn't legally win. He did that when he was certified. I merely claim that it's rather clear that he didn't get more votes overall (indeed, having quite a few less), and that it's highly debatable whether he would have won had the recount been performed.

The only way to determine a clear winner in Florida is to work out how many people intended to vote for each candidate. Gore wins by ten to twenty thousand votes. However, by the number who successfully cast their votes, there's no way to tell. The difference remains well within the margin of error, a few hundred votes out of several million.

 

Excuse me. Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. In the state of Michigan, if I make two lines between different candidates, my vote gets thrown out. It doesn't matter who I INTENDED to vote for. If I don't follow the rules, and vote properly, my vote gets thrown out. If people in Florida couldn't read the rules on how they needed to vote, or if they couldn't ask the helpers standing about, then they lost their chance to vote...

 

[Morat]

Excuse me. Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. In the state of Michigan, if I make two lines between different candidates, my vote gets thrown out. It doesn't matter who I INTENDED to vote for. If I don't follow the rules, and vote properly, my vote gets thrown out. If people in Florida couldn't read the rules on how they needed to vote, or if they couldn't ask the helpers standing about, then they lost their chance to vote...

In your hurry to get this one out, you seem to have neglected to read my post. Perhaps, in the future, you could stifle your righteous indignation long enough to grasp someone's point. For instance, the article I quoted ended with (and this line is in my post):

However, the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law.

The next line was my response, stating:

The last line is rather clear. I don't argue that Bush isn't President. I will state that Gore got more votes, as it's utterly true.

If English isn't your primary language, I will translate the above into something more simplistic:

"Bush got more valid votes. Thus he's President. However, more people voted for Gore, but balloting mistakes (theirs, whether the root problem was ballot design or machine design or simple human error) cost him. And because of the demographics of Florida, and the fact that poor ballot design was the biggest cause of mismarked ballots, Gore lost far more votes than Bush to this sort of error.

So before you get up on your high horse again, I suggest you actually read what you're responding to. Perhaps you won't make such a fool of yourself in the future, eh?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Clay
id rather have a Bible-believing, God-fearing man in the white house than a draft dodging, adulterous, lying, two timing fool.

either could describe either Bush or Clinton.

 

[Clay]

Originally posted by Texas Lynn
either could describe either Bush or Clinton.

oh...my.........

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

At least Clinton wasn't AWOL for 22 months and didn't lie about using Social Security funds over and over again.

 

[Clay]

no, he just protested against the United States in a foreign country, dodged the draft while thousands of other men were being drafted and killed. he had extramarrital affairs and lied about them. he lied to the entire american people, gave away nuclear secrets to the chinese, and the list can go on and on and on.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Clay
no, he just protested against the United States in a foreign country,

Why does the location matter? If the war deserved to be protested against, then that's all that really matters.

dodged the draft while thousands of other men were being drafted and killed.

NO ONE should have signed up willingly for that war.  It wasn't even a war; Congress is the only body with the authority to declare a war.  The executive branch circumvented the Constitution; kind of like they're doing right now.  Anyone who refused service in Vietnam was doing exactly what the founding fathers would have wanted:  standing up to a government that was trying to dodge the law.

But since you're so keen on the Vietnam war, how about Dubya - who used his family's influence to draw National Guard duty, and then skipped out on it, so he could campaign for a southern politician? 

he had extramarrital affairs and lied about them. he lied to the entire american people,

Yeah, that's bad.  But you know what is worse?  Running a covert foreign policy out of the White House, like Iran-Contra.  "But that was years ago", you say? Well, guess what:  the current Bush is recycling the felons from that affair, and giving them jobs in his current administration:  Poindexter, Abrams, etc. 

Bottom line:  extramarital affairs are small potatoes, when we're talking about world affairs and the national economy.  It's about time that conservatives learned a sense of proportion. 

The fact that conservatives continue to come back to the extramarital affairs issue only proves that they don't really have anything substantial to complain about, with Clinton.

 gave away nuclear secrets to the chinese,

Huh?

The Chinese already had the bomb before Clinton.  They've had it for decades.

 

and the list can go on and on and on.

Yes, making up nonsense objections is easy to do.

 

[Randalll]

The location matters as a matter of national respect. It is a tradition proacticed by both sides for the most part. It is considered exceedingly bad taste to protest your own country while in the land of another. How could you not see that, Sauron. Do you ever see any major thing done by Democrats as in error? Anything besides the Lewinski evasion?

Sauron wrote: The executive branch circumvented the Constitution; kind of like they're doing right now. 

Congress granted authority to make war, in effect writing a pass. That is because they lack the courage anymore to declare war. Beyong that, an argument can be made that it is strategically advantageous to not declare wars in the same fashion as was done 60 years ago.

But you know what is worse?  Running a covert foreign policy out of the White House, like Iran-Contra. 

Glad you brought that up. Just what was wrong with helping the Contras fight Communists? You want to know what was wrong with that picture? The entire press corps and body of Democrats forbidding the president from helping a nation defend itself against a communist takeover. To this day the myth persists that Iran Contra was worse than the despicable acts of the Democrats and the press.

CONSERVATIVES learned a sense of proportion???? It's time liberals learned to stop lying to America, daily deception. Nobody cared about Lewinski. The press used that as a diversion to conceal the criminal operation being run out of the White House during the Clinton years. Still, were a Republican president to have been caught in just adultery, forget the perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering and destruction of evidence, only someone uninterested in telling the truth would dare say they wouldn't be calling for an immediate resignation. And the press would dig in for week after week after week after week after week showing man on the street interviews telling why he should step down. In the case of Clinton those street interviews were of people who criticized the Republicans. Guess you didn't notice.

Sauron, you are simply being dishonest to say conservatives lack anything substantive to complain about with respect to the Clinton years, so fall back on the adultery issue. NOBODY as informed as you are could believe that. Remember the convictions? Those were not for adultery, by the way. Remember Barbara Battallino? Remember the FBI files, the missing Rose Law firm records, the removal of files from Vince Foster's office, the killing of children in Waco, a man's wife at Ruby Ridge, the interference in an Israeli election? None of this ringing a bell?

Huh?

The Chinese already had the bomb before Clinton.  They've had it for decades.

Once again we find you taking advantage of someone with a slighter lower base of knowledge. You KNOW what was meant by saying nuclear secrets were sold to the Chinese. Small slip of facts. it was missile guidance technology allowing ICBM's to carry nuclear tipped missiles further. And yes, Clinton allowed that to happen. Do you get paid for sitting here misleading people? I see Democrats call into CSpan every morning, as Democrats criticizing the president, claiming to be Independents, and taking issue with the president, and claiming to be Republicans, but disagreeing with the president on this or that issue. They have an amazing network set up to disseminate deception through calls to radio shows, letters to the editor of newspapers. Finding them on the internet would not surprise me in the slightest. You're awfully good at it. I sure would like to figure out what your affiliation is with the pagan Democrat party, and what your real name is and why anyone would ever defend evil.

 

[kaotic]

It's time liberals learned to stop lying to America

Randalll: why is it that you think that dems are the ones going around lying to everyone about everything?

 

[Randalll]

Morat, if you are so much smarter than your debate opponent, then can you not see clear to more gently helping that person understand your perspective as opposed to accusing him of making himself look like a fool? Is that the way your parents corrected you? Do you have children?

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by seesaw
Randalll: why is it that you think that dems are the ones going around lying to everyone about everything?

just to add

It's like you think that if a few people lie well then all of them lie. I guess there is millions of liars out there.

 

[Randalll]

Seesaw, because of 20 years of close observation of both sides. I have no affection for Republicans, but just call 'em as I see 'em. The Democrats have proven themselves to be a snakehouse of deception time after time. And the entire world would know that were it not for the corrupt news outlets of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and CNN.

It's not really all that hard to figure out, except that most people can't be bothered with politics. After paying attention for not that long, and actually listening to both sides (which are not presented by the above organizations), almost all fair-minded people soon conclude that Democrats can not get their agenda passed by being honest to voters. Therefore they lie.

And to futher their chances of getting elected, they also lie about their opponents. We aren't able to figure out if Republicans would lie because they're never given a chance, as the press shines a magnifying glass on the teeniest Republican faux pas or error. Even telling the truth about Democrats ends up with Dan Rather or Peter Jennings stepping in to inform viewers of the facts about some dastardly Republican ad. It's as if you spoke ill of one of the children of a trailer trash mom. Never do we find the liberal press dissecting a Democrat ad to give us a better look.

If it weren't so, I would not be saying it.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Randalll
Seesaw, because of 20 years of close observation of both sides. I have no affection for Republicans, but just call 'em as I see 'em. The Democrats have proven themselves to be a snakehouse of deception time after time. And the entire world would know that were it not for the corrupt news outlets of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and CNN.

It's not really all that hard to figure out, except that most people can't be bothered with politics. After paying attention for not that long, and actually listening to both sides (which are not presented by the above organizations), almost all fair-minded people soon conclude that Democrats can not get their agenda passed by being honest to voters. Therefore they lie.

And to futher their chances of getting elected, they also lie about their opponents. We aren't able to figure out if Republicans would lie because they're never given a chance, as the press shines a magnifying glass on the teeniest Republican faux pas or error. Even telling the truth about Democrats ends up with Dan Rather or Peter Jennings stepping in to inform viewers of the facts about some dastardly Republican ad. It's as if you spoke ill of one of the children of a trailer trash mom. Never do we find the liberal press dissecting a Democrat ad to give us a better look.

If it weren't so, I would not be saying it.

Dude both parties lie all the time to gain power. If you can prove that the republicans don't lie well go head. I guess you watch fox news like me. They have both dems, and republican on that channel. ABC, CNN, and the rest are crazy channels that say bad things about both parties.

 

[Clay]

sauron-id like you to walk up to any vietnam vet and say it to their face that it wasnt a war. i dare you. American men died to stop the spread of communism. bullets were shot and thousands of men lost their lives. you can sit here and say how it wasnt a war and spew this junk like Jane Fonda, but until you can confront a vietnam vet and say it to his face that it wasnt a war and that he fought a senseless "conflict" then there is no respect in your opinion.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by Randalll
Just what was wrong with helping the Contras fight Communists?

Human rights advanced a notch when the Sandanistas overthrew the Somoza regime.  The Contras were thugs, mostly former Somozoistas. 

The entire press corps and body of Democrats forbidding the president from helping a nation defend itself against a communist takeover.

The media had little to do with it.  They duly reported the reagan Administration's position.  Bills to defund the Contras were duly passed by Congress, which had that authority.  Criminals like North, McFarlane, Poindexter, Abrams, et al broke the law.

To this day the myth persists that Iran Contra was worse than the despicable acts of the Democrats and the press.

It's no myth.  It's the absolute truth.

 I sure would like to figure out what your affiliation is with the pagan Democrat party, and what your real name is and why anyone would ever defend evil.[/color]

I was a delegate to the Democratic State Convention in 2000.  I am a Christian and so were most others there.  My name on this forum is what you see.  Compiling a dossier, eh? 

 

[seebs]

Of course! Freedom depends on accumulating personal information about people who disagree with us so we can "encourage" them to see things our way, right?

*sigh*.

 

[Blindfaith]

Get back to the OP please.  If not, this thread could probably be considered dead.

Thanks.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Clay
sauron-id like you to walk up to any vietnam vet and say it to their face that it wasnt a war. i dare you.

Unnecessary.  I've had Vietnam Vets tell that to me.  I have a minor in naval warfare studies, and my Lt. Col from my NROTC unit saw several tours of duty in Vietnam.  He said on several occasions exactly what I said here:  Vietnam was not a war, it was an unconstitutional police action.  And I've had several other VN vets tell me the same thing. 

Or perhaps you're unaware that only Congress can declare a war?

You should read "On Strategy", by Col. Harry Summers.  It outlines exactly what the US did wrong in Vietnam, and shows in great detail how (by ignoring the Constitution) the Executive Branch cheated the American public of its rightful representation.  He contrasts what the US did wrong, to what we should have done right, as outlined in Baron Von Clausewitz' classic manual on military strategy.

American men died to stop the spread of communism.

No.  They died because of American nationalism, the need to prop up American despots abroad, and the desire to preserve market access.

bullets were shot and thousands of men lost their lives. you can sit here and say how it wasnt a war and spew this junk like Jane Fonda,

It wasn't a war.  It was an illegal police action, undertaken by the Executive Branch because they did not want to go to Congress and get a formal declaration.  By doing so, that would have forced a public vote and debate on the topic.  The Executive Branch feared that the American public would never accept or permit the use of US forces in a brush war halfway around the world, with Americans dying for a 3rd world country that nobody knew anything about.

Instead, the Executive Branch substituted the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (among others) for what should have been a formal declaration of war.

but until you can confront a vietnam vet and say it to his face that it wasnt a war and that he fought a senseless "conflict" then there is no respect in your opinion.

 

It's not a question of respect for their sacrifice, Clay.  It's a question of the constitutionality of the action, and what lessons we can learn today in Afghanistan and Iraq from what happened 30 years ago in Vietnam.

By the way:  it was precisely due to Vietnam that Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 - to prevent the Executive Branch from ever pulling such a stunt again.

 

 

[Blindfaith]

[mod hat on]

Okay ~ Once again....

Get back to the OP.  The Original Topic is; 'No Gore in '04'.  Correct?  If anyone wants to open up a debate about the Vietnam War, I suggest you start a new thread.

[mod hat off]