This Popular Vote Crap!, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 05:54 AM by Lupe_101
It amazes me that some americans are so vastly insular as to believe for no aparent reason that not liking Bush meens they must support Gore.


The contention was not that people could prove that your election was unfair, it is that it is generally percieved as having been screwed up.

Similarly you cannot provide proof that Husseins election was unfair, or indeed that ours in the UK was fair.

what you can say however is that the general feeling in Europe about both elections, yours and the one in Iraq, is that they were suspicious.

Its an interesting Dichotomy however that in Husseins case its percieved that this is because he is evil, in the US's case its percieved that it was because your idiots.

as can be demonstrated by the massive satirical backlash against it in our media and the prolification of US election jokes immediately after the election.

wether you or I agree with this stance or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that it was seen as yet another demonstration of "stupid yanks" syndrome and perpetuated the global opinion of you lot as fat burger munching politicaly illiterate morons.

which is a shame, becasue just as My Mate Gay who lives in Scotland doesn't wear a kilt, toss cabers and drink Iron Brew, I know a fair number of U.S. peeps who really don't fit their global stereotype.

Whats really interesting is that there are some U.S. peeps who have enough self confidence to see the humerous side of this stereotype.
there are others, like yourself, who simply don't.

Maybe thats why you seek validation on the internet.


reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 09:22 AM by Bout Time
I swear to Christ, if I have to keep printing this over & over...can't I just use it as my signatur file, please?

RECOUNTS:
I'll take it for granted that you know there was a Media Consortium that investigated the count ( at least I hope you know)

Palm Beach Post: Gore wins under six of nine scenarios
( All covering statewide recount = Gore)
Monday, November 12, 2001

www.gopbi.com...

Chicago Media Watch: "Gore Wins!
One year later, the truth finally comes out. So why is the media refusing to admit Bush's defeat? " "
The truth is the recount clearly establishes that Al Gore would have been president if the Supreme Court had allowed the recount. "

www.chicagomediawatch.org...

A good comprehensive site
From the Miami Herald: Miami Herald: With flawless ballots, Gore wins by 23,000 votes ( note: Miami Republicans make Thomas look like Ralph Nader, they're so Right Wing...and this is their paper!!)

www.issues2000.org...


The USSC over ruled the FLSC on the select county recount...good move. They stopped the statewide recount...bad & partisan move. Go to the 14th Amendment and read it.

Here it is:
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No matter the debate variables, this is the legal reason that the USSC stated to install GW Bush as president. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a statewide recount with no predetermined winner DEPRIVED BUSH OF 'LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY or DUE PROCESS'!?!?!?!?!

Logic:
"Now, in the equal protection cases I've seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action. But no Florida voter I'm aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else. Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards.

But would he have? If we're to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a "wash" here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument,! that the wash wouldn't end up exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.) So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?"


That the Consortium had the answers and held off releasing the data till nicely after Sept. 11th is lost on everyone, I suppose?

[Edited on 18-12-2002 by Bout Time]



reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 09:43 AM by Bob88
Thatís ridiculous, BT. What does that amendment have to do w/ anything here? Gore only asked for a select county recount ñ now the idiot runs around and says that if there was a state wide recount he probably would have one ñyet he didnít ask for one. Gore lost 4 recounts. And BT, great links, hereís one that I saw on one of them (www.gopbi.com...) Hereís the headline: ìUnder the two most likely scenarios, Bush Wins Floridaî

Goreís plan was to keep counting till he won and try to ignore the law, the Supreme Court in Florida themselves ignored their own election laws ñ thatís why the USSC ruled they had no basis to act.

Itís also noteworthy that the media called the election for Gore before the polls closed. Terribly irresponsible ñwould have prevented voters from voting. One story I read (or maybe it was in some book) looked at past voting turnouts and realized that vote total were down in some areas where the polls were still open when the media called it for Gore. If you here the media call a winner ñ you might not bother voting ñ and thatís what seemed to happen.


reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 12:40 PM by Bout Time
Originally posted by Bob88
What does that amendment have to do w/ anything here? Gore only asked for a select county recount


If you take as a given a non-complicit media, you've got a point. But even within that article, this quote "But the national election that came down to a tiny fraction of votes in Florida never would have been that close if not for Palm Beach County's infamous butterfly ballot. The confusing ballot led thousands of would-be Gore voters to vote for archconservative Pat Buchanan and many more to cast invalid over-votes, votes for more than one candidate."
That's why I posted this:
www.chicagomediawatch.org...

and this:
www.issues2000.org...

That Gore ran a great campaign in winning the popular vote by 1/2 a million votes and a crappy appeals strategy in the litigation process by not going for statewide recounts at the outset, is a matter of record.

"What does that amendment have to do w/ anything here?"
That is the one question that I hear frequently when debating this topic...and the most troubling.
The way the law works is that when a court makes a ruling, they refer to the article of law which makes that ruling binding and legitamate. They just don't do a Parental ' Because I say so' and it's over!
Now after rereading the SOLE quoted reason, the 14th amendement, and the Scalia or Rehienquist briefs on why it applied, please explain to me how a statewide recount with no predetermined winner DEPRIVED BUSH OF 'LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY or DUE PROCESS'!?!?!?!?!
If there is no reasonable explanation, then all we are left with is a Partisan court delivering the office to their boy.


reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 03:29 PM by Bout Time
Bush had votes posted for him that didn't even have a postmark, how obvious a manipulation is that? ( read article above)
That felon-scrub voter list, that Jeb Bush paid a company $4 million to put together( paid less than $7 thousand to the previous co.) - happens to be run by a Bush Pioneer level donor - happen to be wrong on a grossly disproportinate level in traditionaly Dem areas. Also had a bunch of errors with predominately black voters......imagine that. 173,000 people, Bob, were on that list....173,000 we were suppose to have believed, were felons in Florida; not even the whole state, but select areas had 173,000 felons!?!? Is Florida our Australia and no one told me?
"Smith says ChoicePoint would not respond to queries about its proprietary methods. Nor would the company provide additional verification data to back its fingering certain individuals in the registry purge. One supposed felon on the ChoicePoint list is a local judge. "
"
ChoicePoint's board and executive roster are packed with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was chairman of the fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's aborted run against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint by another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death( yup, another-buddy-knows-the-dirty-deals-because-he-did-them-with-the-Bush-crime-family on the deceased list...funny how long that list has gotten) in 1998, Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated $100,000 to the Republican Party. "



archive.salon.com...

Still no explanation on how the 14th Amendment covered the Scalia 5 in their appointment of Bush?
I'll never say Bush stole the election; doesn't have near the wattage needed to design what occured.....but he sure is a willing jockey.

[Edited on 18-12-2002 by Bout Time]


reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 05:35 PM by USMC Harrier
FreeMasons comment that it was created to avoid what happened in Germany(?) is inaccurate (I'm being as kind as I can here), since the EC has been in place for over 120 years or more Germany's issue in 1939 is moot. I could not find accurate data online for the EC history but I'm sure someone here might have access to its date of origin.

What I do know is the intention for its creation was due to the size of this country and the amount of people whose votes could not all be counted individually in a timely manner, so the EC was created to be a voice for each region or state.

With todays technology WE CAN count every vote of every voter in a timely manner (except in Florida apparently) so the need for the EC is no longer there.
I say remove it from the process before it can taint another election.

If another election is affected by the EC's moronic leadership and a candidate who won the popular vote still loses the election; there will be a rebellion in this country and the nect election will garner no votes for any candidate, but instead only garner votes of NO CONFIDENCE in the system as a whole!!

People should not stand for antiquated methods when the technology is there to better represent the CHOICE OF THE AMERICAN VOTERS!!! The country was founded on the ideal of leadership with representation of the masses, any other selection process undermines our constitution and creates a dictatorship.

THIS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!! It should not be tolerated by either the left or the right, and its only because the republicans won that we are not hearing them screaming from every right-wing sector of this country.

So tell me ATS right-wingers, if the tables were reversed would you not be as outraged as I and my fellow dems are? Go ahead, lie if you can but we know the truth!!




reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 06:20 PM by FreeMason
The EC dear bimbo, was created with the nation itself, with the writing of the constitution. Its importance is literally such that the massess will not be a$sess.
Originally posted by USMC Harrier
What I do know is the intention for its creation was due to the size of this country and the amount of people whose votes could not all be counted individually in a timely manner, so the EC was created to be a voice for each region or state.

Wrong, it was created so that the states with 50 million people, did not overly out weigh the states with 1 million people.

And so that if california and New York and Florida wanted to elect someone to be their god for the next 4 years, the rest of the population could have a say in it.

I say, remove the EC and all you have left is California, Florida, and New York, there'd be Civil War in a decade as people learn their votes are #. California does not represent any state but its self, yet its popultation is nearly a 1/4 of the USs total population. Whom they want for president, will benifit ONLY California. Without the EC, the largest states can coalition to rule all other states.

But I don't blame you bimbo, for not understanding federalism. The government has done little to truly teach what Federalism is, and why it is so important. It masks it, instead favoring to teach a centralized government, like that of Rome. An Empire, masked behind a senate, ran by the kings of industry.

The rebellion, bimbo, will come from the unrepresented massess of smaller states, due to the lack of an EC to properly have their voices heard.
Originally posted by USMC Harrier
any other selection process undermines our constitution and creates a dictatorship.

How ignorant your youthful mind is, to think that letting megacities chose our future presidents is democracy!

I would not care had it happend to Bush or Gore, as long as who was chosen kept to his word, and stayed decent presidents. Because I know to sacrfice freedom for a childish idea is insane.

Sincerely,
no signature
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Australian schoolyard bullies to face job ban
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
No Indians or Asians job ad triggers outrage in Australia
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
Iran and the USA
  Posted 1 days ago with 2 member flags
Biden To Skip Tampa: Latest
  Posted 17 days ago with 1 member flags
Three axed ministers CRIED
  Posted 5 days ago with 1 member flags
Asia should have its own Facebook, Twitter: China official
  Posted 6 days ago with 0 member flags
Australia moves to buy $3b spy drone fleet
  Posted 2 days ago with 0 member flags