It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


This Popular Vote Crap!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 05:49 AM
I figured you'd say that. But don't give me so much credit as I can't even carry your lunch in that regard. Take a bow.

posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 06:06 AM
Ah the old "I know I am but what are you" argument. The lunch box analogy was rather apropriate.
presumably unless I also accept that Bush clearly won a land slide victory and there was no funny business whatsoever and the entire election was as smooth as clockwork as every nation and a credit to the organisational skills of your fine government you'll get your dad to beat up my dad because he's bigger and drives a big truck.

here ya go.

plenty more tips on discursive technique.

posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 11:50 AM
You've hit on the key and driving point behind the Election Theft of 2000, USMC Harrier..............that a Republican candidate 'won' is the start & stop of their intellectual scrutiny, America be damned.
The simple matter of outlining what is needed in a court ruling and what was designated as the cited law, that the reason (14th Amendment) has ZERO RELEVANCE to it's application, still goes without viable, logical retort.

We can't even take solace in the fact that history will show Bush's true colors.....they've got the courts to barr access to papers that were previously public domain and revisionist historians by the truck load to recaste his 'greatness'.

posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 04:41 PM
You know, I could have listed those who would post in this topic, and pretty much what each would say.

Loopy starts off the name-calling fest with his statement, 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.

Were idiots. And hes the one who said, Similarly you cannot provide proof that Husseins election was unfair, or indeed that ours in the UK was fair.

Yeah. Iraq had a fair election. Only one name on the ballot. Thats fair. Whos the idiot there, Loopy?

Loopy goes further into his bag of insults by calling us "stupid yanks", and saying that there is a global opinion of you lot as fat burger munching politically illiterate morons. Wow, Loopy, you now speak for the GLOBE!!! Hey, who elected you to that post, and did the wig-wearing poofs down at the Old Bailey have to get involved with the decision? Why didnt I get a ballot? And, oh, by the way, the only thing humorous in your post is, well, your post. I sure do laugh my azz off every time I read one, because you are so ridiculous. I love how you lecture us on our government. How long does it take you to get an appointment to see a doctor under your socialized medicine program? Yeah, you have room to talk

NowBout Time again, you post one sided links that bash bush and the Republicans. Dood, when are you going to learn that we are not idiots who will just take your word on everything just because you say it is so? And you can repost the same drivel a MILLION times, and it will still be drivel! For every link you post to prove your tired old point, I can post 5 that say just the opposite. And mine, I dare say, are MUCH more reliable sources. Heres just a few

There were absentee ballots without a postmark. These came from our military forces who were stationed overseas in locations where there are no post offices, and the Military Postal System (MPS) comes into play. When in such a location, I can write a letter on a piece of cardboard, write MPS in the corner, and it will get delivered. No postmark required, no stamp. Gore wanted ALL absentee ballots trashed. Imagine that. The man who wanted to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces didnt want our votes to count. Talk about hypocrisy! Loopy even tries his playground law crap, when he is the king of such tactics. Smoke and mirrors.

Then BT said, We can't even take solace in the fact that history will show Bush's true colors.....they've got the courts to barr access to papers that were previously public domain and revisionist historians by the truck load to recaste his 'greatness'.

Again, I say, proof, please? And this time, make it REAL proof, not because I say so and reposted it 6 trillion times, or one of your Bush and all Republicans are the anti-Christ sites, please

posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 04:42 PM
I have no idea why the last part of that post is in bold...not intentional, so do'nt beyotch at me that I was yelling...

posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 05:45 PM

To get me to see your points beyond the demagoguery, you'll have to prove your arguments...which you haven't. I'm asking for a defense of the legal statue invoked by the Supreme Court, since it doesn't apply. Get out of attack mode every time you post, it adds nothing to the debate. Though we wish it to be that way sometimes, this is the nebulous entity known as the Internet - I can't take you out back and beat sense into your candy azz - you can't start a pub brawl with Lupe to see who's combat training was better - so the testosterone induced chest thumping does nothing but detract from your intellectual arguments.

Your Links:
a) The Neolibertarian News ( man, does that sound fascist or what!
) - the banner quote on the page = " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of those who threaten it"
Kind of like my old T-shirt that said 'kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out', huh?
The 12 points are posted by someone named 'Robert', whom we are to believe is a stellar source because.....?

b) Washington Post link not found

c) PBS link was prior to the release of the full recount analysis by the Consortium, which found Gore winning Florida in all but 3 of the possible recount scenarios ( out of 9)

d) Civic Values - this one is some type of blog site? The variables I keyed in brought up some kind of manifesto on how people should live....gets my radar up whenever a group start preaching....I don't let Jehovahs hang at my front either.

You mean to tell me that you didn't read about GW issuing an executive order locking all of Reagan's presidential papers away and reserving the right to do it for his, going against the Presidential Papers act and probably the FIA as well!?!? And that he did the same on his papers as Texas Governor!?!?
Man, read up before you debate already, ok?

Can't get more Conservative than the Christian Science Monitor: "Bush signed an order Thursday that historians say will curb their access to White House documents. A lawsuit is likely."

Associated Press: (note: direct link expired but here's the article Published on Friday, November 2, 2001 )
" Critics blast Bush order on Papers"

As Governor: "Who needs a shredder when you have Daddy's presidential library?" said James Newcomb, an official with the Better Government Association in Chicago, which relies heavily on freedom-of-information requests.

Who ever said I'm anti Republican? I voted Republican in everything except my state senator and President in 2000, and would have on President if McCain got the nod. I'm against the Rabid Right Wing that has hijacked the GOP.

posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time

To get me to see your points beyond the demagoguery, you'll have to prove your arguments...which you haven't. I'm asking for a defense of the legal statue invoked by the Supreme Court, since it doesn't apply. Get out of attack mode every time you post, it adds nothing to the debate. Though we wish it to be that way sometimes, this is the nebulous entity known as the Internet - I can't take you out back and beat sense into your candy azz - you can't start a pub brawl with Lupe to see who's combat training was better - so the testosterone induced chest thumping does nothing but detract from your intellectual arguments.

HA HA HA HA HA!!! dude, you make me laugh so hard. i wasn't trying to second guess the supreme court as you were trying to do. They are the law experts, not me, and definatly not you. As for taking me out back and kicking my "cand azz", dude, you are the one always coming up with this kind of statemend. And I would gladly meet you, any time, any place. I'd LOVE to give ya a chance to see what kind of a "cand azz" I am, pussy boy.

As for the links I posted, if you had actually read my post instead of just going off half cocked as you alwyas do, you would have realised that I posted them to show just how easy it is to come up with bull# links just as you always do. Don't get pissed at me because you have no way to back your crap except to post easily refutable links to super-liberal sites and cloud the issue with wrody rhetoric. Cristian Science Monitor? Get real! the "Cult of Personality"? L. Ron Hubbard? Yeah, real bastian of truth about a single reference to a mainstream source....

Try again...

posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 08:04 PM
I'll not defend Bush, nor do I know how history will record Bush, nor do I expect full disclosure from Bush anymore than I expect full disclosure of Clinton, or any other. Big deal.

B-T, you seem to be really worried about the 14th Amendment in regard to this. Please, cite the section the section that involves the U.S. S. C. not being able to overturn arbitrary ruling that is in direct contradiction to FL. election laws. While we're at it, please explain why you seem unconcerned about Florida's supreme court ruling against law, and why this is not political.

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 03:36 AM
I can't really remember, but if I'm right, doesn't the Supreme Court have NO Constitutional powers? I mean...they essentially were nothings, until they heard a case and set presidence that they could in effect determine the constitutionality of any law. Therefore unless its been changed since the early 1800s, the Supreme Court is not tied, nor is it given rights, by the Constitution.

I don't remember, is amazing the fanaticism at which we are urged to learn the constitution and such, I am glad that that urge is there, I doubt even the highest leaders of the Supreme Soviet even knew of the fact that the Soviet Union had a Constitution. But it amazes me at how little of it we really know (I say we as in people who've not long ago seen the insides of public schooling). heh.

no signature

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 06:02 AM
F-M, Article III covers the judicial branch, and is effected also by the eleventh Amendment.

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 02:53 PM

You are one dense son of a beeeyaaotch, ain't ya?

You're right, I'm not a lawyer, though I did study business law as part of my post graduate studies.
So now I'm suppose to believe the links you give to support your arguments are not to inform of a counterpoint, but just filler? You'll have to tell us when you're in filler mode or real content mode, ok?
The references to the Associated Press and the Christian Science Monitor ( which is not the Scientology you're mistaking it for) are "Super Liberal Sites"!?!? Did anybody else know this? Thanks for setting us straight!
But please, don't hit on me, I don't swing that way & don't want to see "what kind of candy azz" you have; I'm sure the boys in Company B are just ga-ga over it. Besides, I thought it was "Don't Ask Don't Tell" a rebel, or what!?!?
But really, I'll respond to every flame, NYer's from my neck-O-the-woods don't back down from a's just not what I come to this site for.


I know how you feel about Bush Sr. And I know you are aware that all of GW's key players are recycled from Reagan/Bush. Given that presidential papers were already screened for sensitive material per current events, what could Bush issuing an Executive Order locking away the forthcoming Reagan papers be about other than political cover to malfeasance by his father & those retreads working for him?
As Governor, no other state head, not even your most hated Clinton, locked up state property ( his papers) at a private library. That is a big deal, because it allows the payola to be hidden, those same folks and companies to have the same illegal access to the same politician who is now in the highest office in the land and on the presidential papers, it covers the deeds of folks allowing them to make the same wrong decisions for the country with impunity. I am a Darwinist in business...that these companies continue because of artificial support via their Bush connection where other companies can step in and do the job better, and it's hidden, does a disservice to the economy that you and I pay for.
On the USSC: I am for the court stepping in as the highest arbiter of what is right, that's not the point. As I explained before, any legal ruling has to cite the law on which it warrant merit; otherwise it's conjecture, not a ruling. The sticking point is that the 14th Amendment was evoked as their reason.....nothing else. You can't tell me something better, after you read the amendment again, couldn't have been cited? Something that actually applied? It was the proverbial square peg driven into the round hole with a sledge hammer.
That they couldn't even come close to mangling any other law to cite without being completely laughed at is evidence that it was a purely partisan decision.
Do a Google search on "Supreme Court decision reaction" or some variable there of and see what lawyer/professors, Repub/Dem/Ind wrote about the atrocity of the decision. Read the dissent written by the other judges, for goodness sake!

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 06:50 PM
Where does the decision violate the 14th amendment? I do not see it, and I'm wanting to know.

Where is the howling of the heinous attempt of ignoring Florida law by the Florida supreme court? Had the Florida supreme court ruled as a proper jury rather than a political creature, this conversation would not be not happening!

Reagan was a wonderful leader and a staunch anti-communist that was willing to do whatever it took to rid us of the Soviet threat. He was no member of the "Illuminati" or any arm of it, although his cabinet was, including the veep. Which brings me to the beginning of our current downward spiral - Bush '41. You are correct in your gathering that I am not a fan of Bush as well as Clinton. I'll say this for Clinton, he didn't hide the fact that he was a snake in the grass. Bush '41 did.
Has Shrub abandoned conservatism for some form of hybrid right-wing liberalism?

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 04:38 PM
FM; As for your comments of my youthfulness, I appreciate it but I'm 42. As for my historical perspective, I was speaking of trhe changes made in 1804 that formed the EC as we know it today. It has existed since the framers of the constitution created it but it has since been changed by the 12th Amendment to its current disfunctionality. Heres what I found with the help of Google.

Historical Development

The framers of the Constitution regarded the electoral college as part of a procedure for electing the president by the people, at least indirectly. It seemed probable to the framers that the system of electors voting by ballot in the states would ordinarily serve also as a nominating device, with the final election frequently left to the House.

Before the adoption of the 12th Amendment in 1804, the electors voted for two persons without distinguishing between a vote for president and vice president. The highest number of votes, if a majority, elected a president. If two persons were tied for first place, the House, voting by states, chose between them. If there was no majority, the House was required to choose among the five highest. After the choice of a president, the highest remaining electoral vote determined the vice president, the Senate being authorized to make a selection in case of a tie.

This unworkable system was altered by the 12th Amendment because of defects demonstrated in the election of 1800, when Thomas JEFFERSON and Aaron BURR, nominees of the Democratic Republican party, each received a majority, with exactly the same electoral vote (73). Despite Jefferson's designation as the party's presidential candidate, it was not until the 36th ballot in the House that Federalist party opposition was overcome and Jefferson was chosen over Burr.

In the early years of the electoral college system, several state legislatures chose electors without a popular vote. After 1828 only South Carolina continued this practice, abandoning it after the Civil War. Electors were chosen by the legislature in Florida in 1868 and in Colorado in 1876.

Before 1828 a number of states permitted voter choice of electors by districts. Michigan utilized this method for the election of 1892. Maine, since 1969, and Nebraska, since 1988, have reintroduced variations of this system, but most states now give all their electoral votes to the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote.

When the names of electors are chosen individually by the voters, the electoral vote of the state may be split, as in 1916 when West Virginia gave seven votes to Charles Evans Hughes and one to Woodrow WILSON. Many states, however, utilize the presidential short ballot, so that the voter makes only one choice for all electors pledged to a given presidential candidate.

The 23d Amendment, adopted in 1961, which enfranchised residents of the District of Columbia for presidential elections, provided that the District choose electors equal to the number it would be entitled to if it were a state, but not more than the least populous state.

Weaknesses of the System

The electoral college system generally gives all of a state's electoral votes to the winner in that state, no matter how slim the margin. Thus it has happened that candidates have been elected even though they received fewer popular votes than their opponents. Both Rutherford B. HAYES, in 1876, and Benjamin HARRISON, in 1888, were elected in this manner. In the case of Hayes, a special electoral commission was called in 1877 to decide the contested returns.

John Quincy ADAMS also received fewer popular votes than his opponent, Andrew JACKSON, in the election of 1824, but his election was decided by the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES because Jackson failed to win a majority of electoral college votes. On several occasions the popular vote pluralities of the electoral college victors have been razor thin or even questionable. One instance was the election of John F. KENNEDY over Richard M. NIXON in 1960.

The feature of the electoral college most prone to attack is the requirement that the election go into the House of Representatives to determine the president and into the SENATE to determine the vice president if the electoral college fails to reach a majority. There might be a paralyzing delay in determining the victors, and the president-elect and vice president-elect could be members of opposing political parties.

The House was called upon to elect a president in the cases of Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, and the Senate chose Richard M. JOHNSON as vice president after the election of 1836. The possibility of this happening again remains very much alive. Should a third-party candidate carry enough states to prevent an electoral vote majority for any candidate, the House, voting by state delegation, might be prevented from reaching an absolute majority.

Pledged electors generally have been regarded as legally free to cast their votes as they choose, and there have been cases of defection from pledged positions. No such deviation has had a clear effect on an election result, but the possibility raises an additional objection to the electoral college. In 1820 a New Hampshire elector voted for John Quincy Adams instead of James MONROE; in 1956 an Alabama elector voted for a circuit judge instead of Adlai E. Stevenson; in 1960 an Oklahoma elector pledged to Richard Nixon voted instead for Harry F. Byrd; in 1968 a North Carolina elector defected from Nixon to George C. Wallace; and in 1988 a West Virginia elector voted for Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. instead of Michael S. Dukakis.

Proposed Changes

Major proposals debated for change in the electoral college have been: (1) substitution of direct popular vote for the president; (2) choice of electors by districts; (3) elimination of electors as individuals, but retention of the electoral college principle, perhaps with an arrangement to distribute a state's votes in proportion to voter support of candidates. Many fear that any change would threaten the two-party system.

The appeal of a popular election is checked by the practical difficulty of achieving it by constitutional amendment. Congressmen and state legislators from small states usually favor retention of the electoral college, reasoning that the college, which includes two votes for each state's two senators, tends to increase the relative weight of the small states.

The district proposal is based on recognition of geographical divisions within a state. It would also reduce the political dominance of the large industrial states by splitting their electoral votes between the candidates. This proposal has been objected to, however, as a crude substitute for more accurate apportionment.

Distribution of electoral votes in proportion to voter support of candidates has occasioned the sharpest controversy. It would eliminate many present inequities of the all-or-none allocation of at-large electoral votes, but it might weaken the two-party system. Candidates of minor parties having no chance to win a state's votes under the all-or-nothing principle might enter the race to win fractions of the apportioned vote.

--Franklin L. Burdette
Director, Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland

posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time

You are one dense son of a beeeyaaotch, ain't ya?

You're right, I'm not a lawyer, though I did study business law as part of my post graduate studies.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Dude, you just get more and more pissed off. You can call me all the names you want, makes me no nevermind. The more pissed off you get, the more you rant and rave, and the more people see you for what you really are...a small minded moron who hides behind impossible to prove rhetoric. But keep up the good work...I need my daily laugh at you!!!

HAAAAAAAA!!!! What a total maroon....

posted on Dec, 31 2002 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Estragon GWB is the constitutionally elected President and there one has it.
Let those who want this change look forward to the next election...

But there's also the Constitutional option of Impeachment available...It's too bad that most people who have enough influence to bring formal charges against him (For how much he's broken the Constitution *after* he PARDONED HIMSELF for earlier crimes) wind up backing down under political pressure, end up coming under other "judicial pressures" or just plain disappear from the eyes of the media or the public because of coverups...Let's face it; Those who could severely oppose Bush wind up crushed in one way or another. Sounds like a "Mafia Boss", doesn't he? But he's actually acquired the power to legitimize himself in the eyes of the public...And that's the most *dangerous* criminal of all.

USMC Harrier has brought up a valid point about the EC...It was originally instituted by the Constitution, but the technology didn't exist at the time to get an accurate, timely *popular* vote from amongst the scattered citizenry. Even though the EC was originally designed to be a "representation" of the popular vote, it was never required to *abide by* the actual results of that vote if those results weren't gathered in an accurate, timely manner. However, most potential voters have many methods of casting their ballots...Internet access, use of public library facilities, etc; A voter even has access to public transportation to reach the voting booth. Even those who can't make the travel can still use "absentee ballots" as long as proper ID verification is implimented. In short, the EC *is* outdated & obsolete! FM's concerns over the relative populations of the different states and/or demographics can be easily countered with our level of technology...Perhaps by reckoning the total state-counts to be a representative similar to counting the number of Representitives admitted to the House by population. In other words, the EC could still be a valid *model* without putting actual individual EC *members* under possible susceptability from political/corporate/whatever influences to cast their own votes in a certain way. However it's done, it can *be done* in a suitable manner & such argument would be rendered moot. I might even have a few suggestions of my own to point out, but it's New Year's Eve here & I've been hitting some sauce for a while already...

I have a similar opinion of the Federal Reserve, but that's a different story & should be abolished for different resons...

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in