Would you vote for Bush in the next election?

Eliahad · Post by **Eliahad** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:04 pm

Caz: People actually vote for electors as Bethy said, and not for the President. So you end up selecting a slate of people who vote for the canidate you put the check mark next to. I believe their names actually do go on the ballots, at least, that's what I remember. So a democratic canidate has a democratic board of people in the college, the republican a different board. The people don't get forced to vote one way or the other, they're already going to vote for the canidate that they're "on the committee" for.

I can only think of one person who ever went against his "committee" and I think I'm remember pure heresay, I don't have the time to look it up at the moment.

So to re-explain.

The "Masses" vote. They go in check off the box for their canidate. Next to the canidate is the slate of people going onto the electoral college.

The popular vote dictates which canidate's board of electors gets put into the College. They then cast the College votes for their canidate.

The canidate with the most electoral votes wins.

Can anyone confirm this as correct? I think it is.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:09 pm

Bethyaga wrote:Electoral College representatives no longer go and vote their conscience--they are bound by the dictates of the popular vote.

Really? Wasn't there some sort of major scare during the last Presidential election when one of the representatives - oldish lady I think it was - voiced the opinion that she didn't have to vote the way peoeple did? Or did that get worked out?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:13 am

Cain wrote:There's so many things wrong with Bush's presidency, he's going to have an uphill battle to try and win this next one.

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone here who actually voted for Bush the first time around, but doesn't plan to this time? 'Cause see, it looks to me like we've got a lot of people who didn't vote for him because they didn't think they'd like what he'd do saying that they won't vote for him because they don't like what he did.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 2:44 am

I voted for himlast time, and unless McCain runs I will most likely vote for him again.

I'd like to pipe up with more of what Teja said. I think it is remarkable how pro freedom of speech and stuff people in here are until it comes to conservative representation of that freedom. In my opinion just the name calling alone tells me what I don't like about the so callled left wing/democrats/whatever-they mistake their youthful anger for righteousness and expect the rest of us to come along for the ride.

How about lettting the rest of decides whats right for us? I don't need you to be my moral compass, or tell me what is right orwrong in society. More specifically I don't want to give up my freedoms so you can make so much more free.

Bush in my opinion is no more and no less than any of the current crop of politicians-they are all, democrat or republican, self serving self righeous morally defunct politically neutered conservatives. Gone are the days of New Deal democrats, gone are the days of Roosevelt's roughriders and great white fleet.

In my opinion the playing field is filled with varying degrees of conservatives.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 3:12 am

I think it is remarkable how pro freedom of speech and stuff people in here are until it comes to conservative representation of that freedom.

Examples?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 3:19 am

Sure, nearly every political topic in SST is an example.

How many times have we heard Bush should die for what he has done? How many times should Bush/Cheney/Ridge be drug out in the street and shot? How many times do I have to hear how right people are?

Look I understand this forum has a lot of college aged members and I should expect it, but I don't have to like it.Or be quiet about it.

People in here are constantly making references to anything conservative as being evil, and unwanted.

If you want more Scamp I am sorry. I don't have a cable modem, and its a real hassle to search the entire forum and post every quote. Besides we'll likely end up disagreeing no matter what.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 3:51 am

FlakJacket wrote:
Bethyaga wrote:Electoral College representatives no longer go and vote their conscience--they are bound by the dictates of the popular vote.
Really? Wasn't there some sort of major scare during the last Presidential election when one of the representatives - oldish lady I think it was - voiced the opinion that she didn't have to vote the way peoeple did? Or did that get worked out?

That's a state-by-state question. I can't recall the specifics for every state, but some are required by their state laws to vote as the popular vote turned out. Others, (one of which was, ironically, Florida in 2000) are not required to do so, but traditionally do it anyways.

I believe there's only been seven electoral college members who went against their state's popular vote in US history. The term is "faithless elector"; I got it from this document on the Electoral College from the Federal Election Comission. The last one was in 1988, when someone woted for Benson as President and Dukakis as Vice-Pres. No faithless elector has ever changed the course of an election, however.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:02 am

Serious Paul wrote:Look I understand this forum has a lot of college aged members and I should expect it, but I don't have to like it.Or be quiet about it.

*Taps Paul on the shoulder. Grabs Marius and pulls him into the picture next to him.*

Hi.

Welby Thorngage · Post by **Welby Thorngage** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:49 am

How many times have we heard Bush should die for what he has done? How many times should Bush/Cheney/Ridge be drug out in the street and shot?

Um, never. But maybe I'm not reading enough of the political threads. However, I would agree that shit like that is pretty stupid, from either side of the fence, and I have heard it from both. I'd also like to point out that there are a great many non-youthful Democrats.

How about lettting the rest of decides whats right for us? I don't need you to be my moral compass, or tell me what is right or wrong in society.

Isn't it funny how Democrats and Conservatives can feel exactly the same way about each other?

[edit]
Awww, fuck. It's Scamp, I forgot to change friggin' names.
[/edit]

Rapid Fire · Post by **Rapid Fire** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:46 am

Bethyaga wrote:
Rapid Fire wrote:(Go ahead and try to convince me he was elected. Good luck)
Because every count of the votes in Florida, both before and after the election was finalized, still came out for Bush. Yes, the court system cut off the counting and recounting before the Democrats were satisfied that it was over, but the counting still continued unofficially anyway... just to see. And guess what? Bush still won. And these extra counts were conducted (if I remember correctly) by a newspaper or university (or both).

I don't like him, but I'm not childish enough to maintain this "selected not elected" crap. Our system (which includes the courts) put him in power. Deal.

And thank you so much for your condescending attitude.

Yes, I noticed that the "official" count gave Bush the win with 537 votes. 537 out of a total of over 5.8 million votes. That's one hell of a margin of victory! Is there a margin of error used in elections? If so, those numbers would be well within it!

Look at the current controversy surrounding electronic voting. If you haven't read about it, you should be outraged with what is going on there. Do a search on Diebold and voting if you're wondering what its all about.

There was too many things that seemed too fishy for my taste with the Florida elections. And nevermind that big brother Jeb just happend to be Governor at the time. Nothing I can prove or substantiate, but it just "seemed" funny to me. I simply do not trust the results.

And yes, you can call it sour grapes, too

Electoral college: An election system that puts a man in office that earned over a half million less votes than the man that actually got the most votes, is flawed. I understand the reasoning behind the Electoral College, but a fair and equitable system should take into account the overall popular votes. How? Don't ask me, I'm not qualified for that.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:55 am

Is there a margin of error used in elections? If so, those numbers would be well within it!

No, there's not a margin of error used in elections. (The whole notion is nonsensical.) So those numbers could not possibly be within it.

Look at the current controversy surrounding electronic voting. If you haven't read about it, you should be outraged with what is going on there. Do a search on Diebold and voting if you're wondering what's its all about.

That's wonderful. It has what to do with anything?

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:12 am

Is there a margin of error used in elections? If so, those numbers would be well within it!

Okay, I'm not an expert or anything, but I get antsy when somebody says "I don't know what the facts are, but I'm sure that they support my case!" Call me kooky.

There was too many things that seemed too fishy for my taste with the Florida elections. And nevermind that big brother Jeb just happend to be Governor at the time. Nothing I can prove or substantiate, but it just "seemed" funny to me. I simply do not trust the results.

Basically, if anything goes off script at all, it must be conspiracy, right? I mean, what you have there is cause for investigation, but you're using it as cause for verdict. Remind me never to call on you for my jury.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 9:48 am

Welby Thorngage channeling Scamp wrote:Um, never. But maybe I'm not reading enough of the political threads.

Some examples, the emphasis is of course my own:

Scamp wrote:In absolutely no way, shape, or form would I vote for the retard.

Cain wrote:Quite frankly, I'd rather see a trained monkey in the Oval Office. Heck, Bush Jr. is largely a trained monkey, dancing to the tune played by Rove, Cheney, and various corporate interests.

Rapid Fire wrote:I knew it back when the fucking SOB was appointed the Presidency by the Supreme Court (Go ahead and try to convince me he was elected. Good luck) that this retard would fuck everything up.

CazMonster wrote:Mostly because I would love to see somebody beat the shit out of Bush and Cheney at the same time.

Cain wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again-- Bush is an idiot, and it's certainly not helping the pro-war cause to have an idiot as it's champion. Sorry for the lapse into rhetoric, but it's part of the point I want to make. If the cause were championed by someone else, then it may be taken somewhat more easily.

Annie wrote:Ready-made voodoo dolls, make your own webcomics of Bush getting violated and burned in effigy...

From here

Mr Mooky wrote:The really stupid thing about this is that people actually trusted what George, Dick and Co had to say. I thought they surrendered their credibility the moment your Supreme Court elected them.

From here.

Glyph wrote:So as much as I'd like to see the lying dirtbag fry, there's not a chance in Hell it's gonna happen.

Some forms of death wishing vary.

Cazmonster wrote:Most of my feelings on this are still overwhelmed by my want to be twelve foot tall, and bulletproof. That way, I could go down there and slap the shit out of Jeb for being this much of an ass.

Mr. Mooky wrote:Is it too late to abort Jeb?

Gunny wrote:would someone please assassinate this fucking idiot?

In reference to Jeb Bush.

Angel wrote: I hope someday George W. Bush is arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity.

Harm apparently doesn't include ruining anyones life...

Liniah wrote:What, like death? I don't think it's a coincidence that these adds come out when the whole Iraq thing is going on. Do you really think they're making those adds to help them? I mean, what better people for the government to send away to die than the poor. Then the Georgiepooh doesn't have to worry about welfare and the economy quite as much if they lose them. It's sick.

And none of these quotes are even Crazy Elf,Subersive Agent,Leon,or any of our nutter uncles. I even kept my Cain quotes to a minimum. Heh. Also I should note that these quotes come from a long period of Bulldrek history here. I am thinkig long term here, and I realize people change their minds, and say stuff in anger. So please, no one take this as a scarlet letter thing.

Isn't it funny how Democrats and Conservatives can feel exactly the same way about each other?

Yup. I feel however democrats are also conservatives. By simply saying conservatives, there is the implication that republicans are all conservative. That's no more tue than saying all democrats are liberals.

Okay I am sure there are more quotes out there, and better ones, but after four hours of dial up searching I am calling it quits.

[Edited for spelling and such]

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:31 am

Hell, I'd say what I said there again.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 12:48 pm

Rapid Fire wrote:And thank you so much for your condescending attitude.

Dude, that's what you get when you act like a child. Remember the 48 pt screaming red "Fuck No!" and the "I dare you to prove it to me" crap? You were hardly being the pinnacle of maturity. My response was completely appropriate and pretty reasonable. If that amount of needling bothers you after the anger and hate you were spewing, then you need to learn to take it as well as you dish it.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:21 pm

Some examples, the emphasis is of course my own:

Ok, I see what you're saying, though very few of the quotes provided actually have anything to do with anyone getting "drug out into the street and shot" which is really what I was responding to. (And I don't really count Caz's stuff, cause he wants to beat the shit out of everything.

) I sometimes tend to take things literally, which is what I was doing there.

Though I do honestly believe that Bush Jr isn't very intelligent.

Yup. I feel however democrats are also conservatives. By simply saying conservatives, there is the implication that republicans are all conservative. That's no more tue than saying all democrats are liberals.

Oh, absolutely. I was just pointing out that I (and many others) feel exactly the same way about conservative Republicans that you do about excessively vocal liberal Democrats.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:01 pm

You're using me out of context to fuel your point Paul and I don't appreciate it. You tell me that you agree with Jeb Bush interfering in the LEGAL RIGHTS of allowing a vegitative woman to die, per the wishes of her husband (who's her legal guardian BTW) and forcing a severely mentally retarded woman who was raped to have the child she NEVER SHOULD HAVE CONCIEVED in the first place.

Look at the people in Florida who are scared to death that Jeb Bush will find a reason that goes against his moral fibre to interfere with their PRIVATE LIVES even if what he does tips the very laws that were created, just because it's against the his moral beliefs. He wasn't elected to shove his moral beliefs in the faces of his constituants. He was elected to be the voice of the people he serves.

I have never said anything negative towards the President, but what Jeb Bush does scares the hell out of me because he doesn't seem to be doing the things he does for the people, but for his own beliefs of right and wrong... even if the law says it's right and what he's doing is very, very wrong. If the man just wants to grab some political spotlight, I'm sure he could have found a better way to do it.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:00 pm

Well, great. Now you're in context and you're fueling his point even better.

He wasn't elected to shove his moral beliefs in the faces of his constituants. He was elected to be the voice of the people he serves.

First of all, you don't know why people voted for him. But I'll bet you all the money in my wallet against all the money in yours that his morals had a lot to do with it.

And second, no, he wasn't elected to be the voice of the people. He's not a representative. He's not a legislator. He's the chief executive of the state. He was elected to lead and to administer. He wasn't elected because people think they can control what he does. He was elected because people picked him as the person who they most trusted to do things the way they want.

what Jeb Bush does scares the hell out of me because he doesn't seem to be doing the things he does for the people, but for his own beliefs of right and wrong...

And that, right there, is Paul's point pretty well illustrated.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:15 pm

Marius wrote:He was elected because people picked him as the person who they most trusted to do things the way they want.

Which is what makes him the "voice" of the people.

They elected him to do what's right by them. As soon as he does something that they don't agree with, he has stopped doing what's right by them and started doing what's right by him.

Granted, I don't live in Florida so I don't know if everyone is happy with a mentally retarded woman who was raped being forced to have the baby (gawd only knows where that poor child is going to end up). If they are, more power to them and remind me never to move to Florida.

I find what he did as morally reprehensible, but so do a lot of people when it comes to the war in Iraq (however I support what's going on over there even if I don't think it's going so smoothly). So I can see his point to an extent except there's a big difference between the Governer of Florida (one little state) and the President of the United fucking States (a whole COUNTRY). But, like I said, I can see his point to an extent.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 8:11 pm

Gunny wrote:Which is what makes him the "voice" of the people.

They elected him to do what's right by them. As soon as he does something that they don't agree with, he has stopped doing what's right by them and started doing what's right by him.

And for all we know, the majority agrees with him. They voted for him after all.

What you're suggesting, Gunny, sounds like he should take an opinion poll on every issue and take action based on polls. Is that the sort of government you would prefer? Politicians are criticised on a daily basis for changing their opinions with the shifting winds of public opinion.

They elected him, because they thought he was the best man for the job--the man who can make the best decisions for the state without bowing to special interests or shifting polls. If that turns out to be wrong, then they'll have the chance to say so in the next election. That's the way it works.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 8:58 pm

Paul-- as Scamp pointed out, there is a world of difference between thinking someone's a moron and saying he should be "dragged out into the street and shot". Not everyone who disagrees is a radical. Just because I don't think everything Bush does must be right, or that he knows what's best for the country, or that he shits gold, that doesn't mean I think he deserves to be murdered in cold blood.

I defy you to show where I have actually said Bush and Co. "deserve to die". And according to you guys, I'm supposedly the super-liberal around these parts. If I'm not saying anything that extreme, then how come people who are supposedly *less* extreme than I are doing so?

No, I'm not too bright on Junior. So what? You don't agree with me on many points either. If that was your only point, then fine, you made it. But you're currently quoting people out of context in order to paint them as anti-Bush extremists who want to see the whole family burned at the stake. Which does not reassure me at all as to your ability to think, as opposed to your ability to absorb propoganda.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 9:26 pm

First off I am not quoting anyone out of any context. Every quote is complete sentences with out ANY editing. These are examples of what I consider condescending attitudes toward conservative thinking here. It was not meant as the shortlist of people who want Bush dead. I disclaimed it all by stating people get angry and people change their minds. I also mentioned there were likely better quotes, and people shouldn't take this as a scarlett letter thing-which seemingly some people did.

I am specifically trying to prove people want to kill anyone. Which may be my oown mistake for using that example-which was intended to show how extreme people here can get. I wantedto illustrate a general attitudeof disdain, which is why I left some of the funnier stuff by Leon and Elf off.

So again stop taking this as finger pointing-this all old news, and it was simply being used to illustrate how I feel. Not you, me.

I realize my point may not have the clarity it should, because of my own lack of writing skill, for that I apologize. The so called liberal left wing can be as repressive as so called right wing conservatives, and in my mind there is little difference between the two.

In closing sorry I geeked anybody up-that really wasn't my point. I picked people that I thought wouldn't have a problem with this. Obviously I was wrong.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 9:28 pm

Bethyaga wrote:What you're suggesting, Gunny, sounds like he should take an opinion poll on every issue and take action based on polls.

Why not? AFAIK, former President Regan used to address the public on issues before he made a decision on them and that made him a really damn popular president. Of course, I was a little kid during his administration, so I'm not totally in the know.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 9:59 pm

Did he ask for opinions or just keep the public informed about what he was doing and why?

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:24 pm

I believe he encouraged the public to voice their opinions by writing to the White House and calling their local Congressmen.

I'm not 100% positive on that though and I'm having a hard time trying to find anything that specific about his presidency.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:29 pm

Gunny wrote:I believe he encouraged the public to voice their opinions by writing to the White House and calling their local Congressmen.

That's significantly different from taking opinion polls.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:42 pm

I thought that's what you meant. doh.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:46 pm

Reagan's addresses to the people were actually to generate popular support for decisions he had already made. He knew what he wanted to do, but he often received flak from congress or others about his ideas, so before he made his move, he would take it over their heads and "go straight to the people," generating the popularity so that others would look foolish for opposing him.

No matter what else you say about him, Reagan had the charisma, and he had it in spades.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:21 am

Cain wrote:You're currently quoting people out of context in order to paint them as anti-Bush extremists...

I am an anti-Bush extremist. Basically because I don't buy the argument that the current US president was legitimately elected. And I get thingy about things like the most powerful democracy in the world not having a democratically elected leader.

Do I think the man should be assassinated? No. Would I like to see his political death? Most certainly. And the same goes for his election-rigging brother.

If, however, he manages to win the 2004 election legitimately and fairly, I would still disagree with the guy - but I'd respect him as the representative of his nation.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 2:09 am

I realize my point may not have the clarity it should, because of my own lack of writing skill, for that I apologize. The so called liberal left wing can be as repressive as so called right wing conservatives, and in my mind there is little difference between the two.

I can't argue with you here. While you guys consider me to be some uber-liberal, the liberals I know consider me to be disturbingly conservative in most ways. The Naderites and the Sharptons get on my nerves something fierce, and I hold many of them in as low esteem as I do the uber-neo-conservatives.

In closing sorry I geeked anybody up-that really wasn't my point. I picked people that I thought wouldn't have a problem with this. Obviously I was wrong.

I don't have a problem with you using me as an example of someone who's condescending towards Bush. I do have a problem with being used as an example of a bomb-throwing nutcase. You and I disagree on many points, and that's fine. And you've got a valid point, inasmuch as many people here do not like Bush, and are not the least bit shy in saying so.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:15 am

mrmooky wrote:Basically because I don't buy the argument that the current US president was legitimately elected. And I get thingy about things like the most powerful democracy in the world not having a democratically elected leader.

Have you read the rest of this thread? You do understand that even though the recount was stopped before Gore's camp was ready to stop, every single count before and since--even one's by left-leaning groups--has indicated that Bush won Florida, and therefore the nation, fair and square?

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:50 am

Bethyaga: I remember reading an article about what would have happened if Gore never fought to eliminate certain kind of ballots like hanging chads, etc...and Gore would have won, but fight was fought, and Bush ended up winning. It was long time ago...

Can't seem to find the article, but I found this article to be very interesting

This Article

Anyway, now it's bygone, and now it's probably a good idea to focus on the issues that affects us the most. What is history is now the history, and we can't do much to change the history...

Now how about next year's election? Will eyes be on Florida? Will eyes be on California?

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:26 am

Bethyaga wrote:You do understand that even though the recount was stopped before Gore's camp was ready to stop, every single count before and since--even ones by left-leaning groups--has indicated that Bush won Florida, and therefore the nation, fair and square?

I'm usually not too fussy, but here I really would appreciate a link, or something (anything!) to substantiate that point. Because it isn't something I've heard from anyone other than yourself.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:53 am

I'm not going to get into this, but I've heard stories going both ways. I can't substantiate anything, but a quick bit of google-fu provided this link, which has some interesting facts that may or may not be supported. My opinions on Bush notwithstanding, I'd suggest getting your salt shakers ready before reading this article.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:04 am

mrmooky wrote:I'm usually not too fussy, but here I really would appreciate a link, or something (anything!) to substantiate that point. Because it isn't something I've heard from anyone other than yourself.

Salon.com seems like a reputable source.

And before you go off, the scenarios in which Gore wins were not the ones that the Supreme Court stomped on; they were never brought up.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:07 pm

I see a couple of scenarios where Bush would have won, a hell of a lot more scenarios where Gore would have won, no attempt to count the votes of those blocked from the polls by Katherine Harris and her database, no attempt by either the Democrats or the Republicans to hold a fair re-election, rather than a recount of an already botched election, and a riot mob organised by James Baker to prevent the recount in Dade County. Is this supposed to convince me of Bush's validity?

I don't give a shit that the type of recount Gore wanted would still have led to Bush's victory. That just makes me lose respect for Gore. What I do care about is that the will of the voting public in Florida was not honoured.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:12 pm

mrmooky wrote:I don't give a shit that the type of recount Gore wanted would still have led to Bush's victory. That just makes me lose respect for Gore. What I do care about is that the will of the voting public in Florida was not honoured.

Mooky, if there hadn't been a court-ordered hand recount, the vast majority of those votes would have gone in the trash and not been counted at all because someone was too stupid to punch a card all the way out or fill in the bubble instead of making an X across it. They weren't valid votes. Now, if you want to say that machine voting is inherently unfair, that's okay; we can discuss that. But the fact is that the votes did not count, because they were made improperly.

Rapid Fire · Post by **Rapid Fire** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:43 pm

Marius wrote:
Is there a margin of error used in elections? If so, those numbers would be well within it!
No, there's not a margin of error used in elections. (The whole notion is nonsensical.) So those numbers could not possibly be within it.

Look at the current controversy surrounding electronic voting. If you haven't read about it, you should be outraged with what is going on there. Do a search on Diebold and voting if you're wondering what's its all about.
That's wonderful. It has what to do with anything?

OK, I didn't know, and couldn't find anything about margins of error. It was meant as more as question than a statement; my bad.

It has to do with voting fraud; how the machines that Diebold makes are dangerously insecure, making it laughably easy for someone to alter the votes. And there is no way to do a valid recount, because there is no paper ballot or any type of 'reciept' to count.

Did you find anything about where the CEO of Diebold is quoted that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Don't you find that to be improper, and a conflict of interest?

Maybe it is too far off topic, but I think it is relevant to next year's election.

Rapid Fire · Post by **Rapid Fire** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:29 pm

Bethyaga wrote:
Rapid Fire wrote:And thank you so much for your condescending attitude.
Dude, that's what you get when you act like a child. Remember the 48 pt screaming red "Fuck No!" and the "I dare you to prove it to me" crap? You were hardly being the pinnacle of maturity. My response was completely appropriate and pretty reasonable. If that amount of needling bothers you after the anger and hate you were spewing, then you need to learn to take it as well as you dish it.

Yes, I remember that. The question in the topic was asked, and I answered it with an honest, from the bottom of my heart answer. Looking back, I will admit to using too much venom in my post, and I apologize for that. It's a bit of a sore spot for me, that the man currently using the Oval Office is still regarded by at least 50% of people as someone doing a good job. Not much can get me riled up, but that's one of them.

I don't trust the 2000 presidential elections in Florida. Too many things that seem suspicious to me. I will keep my unsubstantiated beliefs to myself from now on.

Your response was appropriate and reasonable up until the 'childish' remark. That's where your response turned into flamebait. You need not reply to this, since I will not read it, as I am going to leave this topic alone.

Again, I apologize for my rash behavoir. Good day.

Rapid Fire · Post by **Rapid Fire** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:11 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:
Is there a margin of error used in elections? If so, those numbers would be well within it!
Okay, I'm not an expert or anything, but I get antsy when somebody says "I don't know what the facts are, but I'm sure that they support my case!" Call me kooky.

There was too many things that seemed too fishy for my taste with the Florida elections. And nevermind that big brother Jeb just happend to be Governor at the time. Nothing I can prove or substantiate, but it just "seemed" funny to me. I simply do not trust the results.
Basically, if anything goes off script at all, it must be conspiracy, right? I mean, what you have there is cause for investigation, but you're using it as cause for verdict. Remind me never to call on you for my jury.

As I had replied to Marius, it was meant as a question. My bad.

This isn't a court of law, this is a discussion board. If a verdict was required from the available facts I would rule in favor of Bush winning. All I'm saying is that I don't trust the election results. No more, no less. I'm actually very impartial when I need to be. You probably would want me on your jury, if you were after a fair verdict.

When things don't go according to plan, conspiracy is something to be considered, especially when conditions would make it easy to commit.

As I said in my previous post, I will now leave this topic alone. Good day.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:09 pm

Sure all of us can use to take a step back at times, but don't just leave. You're no more in the wrong or overly emotional than I am at times. I'd rather you'd just take a step back and come back to particpate then just abdicate the thread.

I feel despite all our differences we stand to benefit from each other.

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:27 am

While I can be conservative on a number of topics, such as gun control and drug laws, I have never made a secret of my disdain for Shrub. The quote from me, though, is from a thread on whether Bush should have been impeached for lying, so unless you are under the mistaken impression that impeachment carries a death sentence, it's pretty obvious that the "fry" was metaphorical, not literal.

The Florida election has been debated to death. Personally, I believe that the felon lists were deliberately used by Harris to undermine the election, although I think it was more opportunism, once they saw the demographics of the list, than their original intent. It's still fraud on a massive scale, though. When you have Clayton Roberts, confronted with incriminating evidence on a BBC interview, rip off his microphone, run into his office, and lock the door... something's wrong.

I wouldn't vote for Shrub, but I didn't vote for him the first time, so <shrug> big surprise. His presidency has been more or less what I thought it would be, if not even worse in some ways. I disagree with his domestic policy and his foreign policy, as well as his stance on the environment, his corporate pandering, and the ill-conceived Patriot Act.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:10 am

OK so hell would have to freeze over before I voted Bush (that is if I was an American citizen which I will never become one thank you very much). The people that know me know that I more or less hate the current president and the current administration (I don’t exactly hide it very well). I believe that they are a bunch of die hard overly religious right wing wankers up to no good. So if I could vote I'd most likely vote Dean, not that he is perfect or anything he is simply the least bad of the bunch. Clark could be possibly be ok but I don’t see him winning, Nader and the greens would be really nice but I don’t see them as really having a shot either so it would be a wasted vote (only wasted in the sence that they'll never win under the current system, not in the way that voting is ever a waste).

What Bush is doing is not good for America and it certainly isn’t good for the world, so anyone but him would do the trick, even Howdy Doody (spelling?) as someone previously noted. He (Bush) is a simple puppet and there is someone else with there hand far up his a**e, it is anybodies guess who the puppet master is, could very well be the dynamic duo of Rove and Rumsfeldt or perhaps even a trio or an entire orchestra. Which ever it is it looks like George is completely stuffed.

America might not care what the rest of the world thinks of it but I believe it does, at least on some level. It might not have been loved before Bush but at least it wasn't more or less hated on a global scale as now. All thanks to George and his merry men in the current administration. Never before have so few ruined so much for so many in such short a time. The good things that have come out of it is that at least some European politicians have decided to grow a spine of their own instead of being US lapdogs (Fetch Tony! Fetch! Good puppy!)

Reading the post here one can conclude that there is a whole bunch of people that would vote neither democratic or republican but instead independent nor green. Since they have a snowballs chance in hell to ever win anything kind of nation election one have to conclude that there is something wrong with you electoral system. Why not just have one man (or woman) one vote. That is the only way these small parties are ever going to see any kind of representation on the national level. As it is not you are nothing but a two party state and it will remain that way most likely forever or until the system changes since it is not likely that they will ever want to share the "power".

Someone mentioned how bad it would be if Al Sharpton ran/won. Even in a hypothetical discussion such as this one needs to have some grasp on reality. You'll have a Hispanic president before Sharpton ever takes the oval office. The only black man that could possibly even come close to winning that would be Colin Powell (in the current day in age that is, who knows what the future holds).

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:38 am

Salvation122 wrote:They weren't valid votes.

And that is, at least in part, due to the incompetence and/or political bias (take your pick) of the organisers of the election.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 12:37 pm

lorg wrote:Reading the post here one can conclude that there is a whole bunch of people that would vote neither democratic or republican but instead independent nor green.

The demographics of this board are in no way representative of the demographics of the nation.

lorg wrote:Since they have a snowballs chance in hell to ever win anything kind of nation election one have to conclude that there is something wrong with you electoral system. Why not just have one man (or woman) one vote. That is the only way these small parties are ever going to see any kind of representation on the national level. As it is not you are nothing but a two party state and it will remain that way most likely forever or until the system changes since it is not likely that they will ever want to share the "power".

The electoral system has no effect on the representation of so-called "third parties." These parties have not recieved enough votes in a national election within recent memory - since the democratic and republican parties attained their current levels of dominance in national politics - for the electoral system to effect them in any way.

I agree that "one person, one vote," is the way to go, but it is fallacious to assume that this will result in increased representation of third parties.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 12:37 pm

mrmooky wrote:
Salvation122 wrote:They weren't valid votes.
And that is, at least in part, due to the incompetence and/or political bias (take your pick) of the organisers of the election.

It is equally certain that it is due vastly more to the incompetence and/or political bias of the voters.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:06 pm

3278 wrote:
lorg wrote:Reading the post here one can conclude that there is a whole bunch of people that would vote neither democratic or republican but instead independent nor green.
The demographics of this board are in no way representative of the demographics of the nation.

I figured as much. Boards around the net rarely represent the views of Joe Average.

3278 wrote:
lorg wrote:Since they have a snowballs chance in hell to ever win anything kind of nation election one have to conclude that there is something wrong with you electoral system. Why not just have one man (or woman) one vote. That is the only way these small parties are ever going to see any kind of representation on the national level. As it is not you are nothing but a two party state and it will remain that way most likely forever or until the system changes since it is not likely that they will ever want to share the "power".
The electoral system has no effect on the representation of so-called "third parties." These parties have not recieved enough votes in a national election within recent memory - since the democratic and republican parties attained their current levels of dominance in national politics - for the electoral system to effect them in any way.

I agree that "one person, one vote," is the way to go, but it is fallacious to assume that this will result in increased representation of third parties.

I believe one would have to make a few other changes to incorporate the smaller parties into the system. Handing out places in power on a % of the vote. But then you could end up in the hell other nations have with a lot of small parties that can never get along with each other and you have a constant squabble instead. But in theory they should get representation if enough vote, now they have to win the state to get to send someone to Washington and well they are a very far way from getting to do that. But sure 1 green rep (for arguments sake) in an ocean of Reps and Dems. He wouldn't have much pull that is for sure.

Not taking the electoral system into account exactly how many people voted for something not democrats or republicans in the last election? A few % of the population or less? Would more people vote for them if the system was different and didn't work against them? Cause it looks like the current system is in place to hold the others back and lock in the two big once in some wacky power sharing struggle. They never have to worry about loosing a vote/seat to someone else besides each other.

Would probably be easier to if you just voted once and power was handed out after that instead of voting for president, congressmen and senators. Not to mention that not all elections are at the same time.

"One person, One Vote" is the simples way to go (unless you wanna go banan republic and become el presidente but that opens up a whole new bag of trouble), one vote and then you hand out the "power" for a time period (4-5 years depending on country). Why make it more complex then it has to be?

But as you mention just cause it is there that doesn't mean it will actually change anything. Just look at the election in Serbia (reported today or yesterday), three elections now and they can't even get the people to go out and vote and decide there own future.

Serbia has failed to elect a president for the third time in just over a year because of low turnout, exit polls suggest. (news.bbc.co.uk)

I know that last piece was out of topic but it was just to try and make a point that perhaps the system doesn't matter as much when the people are apparently unwilling.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:34 pm

He (Bush) is a simple puppet and there is someone else with there hand far up his a**e, it is anybodies guess who the puppet master is, could very well be the dynamic duo of Rove and Rumsfeldt or perhaps even a trio or an entire orchestra. Which ever it is it looks like George is completely stuffed.

Without getting into the argument over whether or not he is being controlled, would that neccesarily be a bad thing?

For the sake of argument, if someone was to have all of the credentials to be a good president, was wise enough and just enough to make the decisions needed to be a good president, but lacked the charisma to get elected, would it be all that bad to elect a president that did possess that charisma, to be thier puppet?

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 8:04 pm

3278 wrote:
lorg wrote:Since they have a snowballs chance in hell to ever win anything kind of nation election one have to conclude that there is something wrong with you electoral system. Why not just have one man (or woman) one vote. That is the only way these small parties are ever going to see any kind of representation on the national level. As it is not you are nothing but a two party state and it will remain that way most likely forever or until the system changes since it is not likely that they will ever want to share the "power".
The electoral system has no effect on the representation of so-called "third parties." These parties have not recieved enough votes in a national election within recent memory - since the democratic and republican parties attained their current levels of dominance in national politics - for the electoral system to effect them in any way.

Since it seems to be an issue, Third Parties are still viable in many ways...

Famous Third Party Candidates the most recent of which was H. Ross Perot and the most well known of which is Abraham Lincoln.

Jim Jeffords is currently an independent United States Senator from Vermont. When the Senate is otherise fairly evenly divided, his swing vote can become a powerful factor and thus he can often wield significant influence. The Republican Majority has lessened his impact, though that has also lessened the influence of even the Democrats.

Third parties have national representation, so lorg's initial assumption is incorrect, making it a moot point.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:03 pm

Serious Paul wrote:Sure, nearly every political topic in SST is an example.

How many times have we heard Bush should die for what he has done? How many times should Bush/Cheney/Ridge be drug out in the street and shot? How many times do I have to hear how right people are?

Look I understand this forum has a lot of college aged members and I should expect it, but I don't have to like it.Or be quiet about it.

People in here are constantly making references to anything conservative as being evil, and unwanted.

If you want more Scamp I am sorry. I don't have a cable modem, and its a real hassle to search the entire forum and post every quote. Besides we'll likely end up disagreeing no matter what.

Actually it is not conservatisum that I feel is evil, I hate the liberals too.

The government in general sucks, however conservatisum does lean towards the very rich side of the population. Of which I am not even close to being in.

Hence the reason I am not to happy with it.