Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: -lynx- on November 10, 2000, 05:17:00 AM
-
I'm sorry Fury and other Republican-minded public (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) but this just does not wash:
- You claim victory in Florida/the whole thing based on the count as it stands and the majority of less than 1,000 votes (fact);
- You say that all Democrats' claims is balooney and a plot (maybe not in the same words but I'm sure you get my drift - fact);
At the same time:
- Votes from abroad have not been counted (according to some reports weren't even expected for at least a week!!!);
- 14 out of 67 counties in the state of Florida have not even submitted their count yet as of this morning! (source - BBC Radio news);
- Pat Bucannan leads in predominantly Jewish community???
Please no flames - I'm not an American and personally like the pilot guy better. But surely one has to be honest with oneself and admit to the fact that claiming victory based on such a slim majority with so many votes not even counted yet is not really fair?
p.s. All this with the twist that the majority of American people (numbers)actually did vote for "the other guy"?
p.p.s. re-vote in Florida with just 2 names on a ballot paper would take a couple of days to organise and would resolve the issue once and for all without splitting the country in two and getting the lawyers even richer...
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
-
Word from the AP on the recount shows 324 votes for Bush over gore's total. Now we wait on the democrats 3rd recount plus the absentee ballots.
You can't have a re-vote of this election as the outcome of the other states are known. It would be skewd and inaccurate.
Eagler
-
re-vote would cause a war. No way the revote could be deemed true. Now that they know how important the state is or how close it is, it could switch original votes, from both parties. Sure it sounds simple but its not possible. If you dont take the time to read and understand your personal responsibilities on the ballot, too bad. This is not vote until you get it right. Ballots were thrown out because people punched twice for president, how brain dead do you have to be to punch twice? I just dont get it. This is gettin disqusting.
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
All 67 counties have been accounted for as of this morning, Bush ahead by 300+, still 3000 votes to go from overseas, deadline is Nov.17th.
West Palm beach has jewish communities but by all means, is NOT predominently Jewish, that's what the press is telling you but do you believe everything the press tells you?
My mother lives in West Palm Beach, I visit there often. It has Jewish communities, but in no way is predominently Jewish...besides, alot of the Jewish community hates Leberman, since he's an unorthadox jew, and he married a Catholic.
-
Anyone want me to tell me the error on the vote count?
If the vote is accurate to say 1000 votes, then the percentage error on the 6 million votes is +/- 0.0167%. This sounds a little too accurate to me.
-
I keep hearing about how confusing the ballot was for those poor 19,000 people (out of 450,000 in the county). So I looked at it for myself:
(http://www.houseblend.net/joeshow/images/BallotPhoto.jpg)
Now 95% of the people in this district figured it out just fine. There was another district that used a similar ballot for a different office and no problems were reported. Reform Party votes in this district were of a similar percentage in a recent congressional race as they were in the Presidential race this time. What is the problem?
-
Looks clear to me, but I'm a Republican (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Now we are going to spend millions of dollars trying to create an idiot proof ballot. Talk about an unending process. I think there will always be an idiot who can't figure out a particular ballot.
I think the problem was that the arrow was not flashing at #5.
Very disturbing precedence being set in SE FL this weekend.
God help us all
Eagler
-
Well, sure they are morons. But here's why the ballot doesn't work:
The logical order of the printed portion of the ballot is top-down, left-to-right, not left-to-right, top-down, but the holes to be punched follow a top-down order.
"Huh?" you say. "What the hell is Dinger going on about?"
Look at the ballot: On the left side are the major party candidates, followed by the minor party candidates. The minor party candidates continue on the right side and the ballot ends on the bottom right with the write-in candidate.
This is the official order of the ballot and the one controlled by Florida law.
Now, the punch holes going top-down (and the numbers on the printed ballot) mix the left and right sides of the ballot so the order "Major party-minor party-write-in" is ignored.
What this means is that whoever designed the ballot (partisan affiliation of designers or approvers of this ballot is only relevant if the accusation is fraud, such as the Bush campaign's argument for stopping a hand recount), intended for it to be read top-down, left-right, but punched left-right, top-down. If you want to argue that the printed numbers (BUsh 3, Buchanan 4, Gore 5) indicate the real order of the ballot, then it is technically invalid by Florida Lww as it puts minor party candidates before major party ones.
Whether this confusion provides legal grounds for anything whatsoever has to be decided by the courts. No precedent that has been posted (or rather spammed here) is absolutely controlling in this case.
So quit your whining, grab a beer, and watch public officials from both parties make royal tulips of themselves.
-
I could have performed a satisfactory vote there withing 20 seconds of looking at that paper. I am only of average intelligence and could figure that one out.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether anyone can prove there was in any way anything illegal or even intentionally misleading or any kind of bias shown by either party during the election. The answer is "no".
Should the Democrats ask for a revote in such a close election? Sure. They had it. Now they want another, and another, and another... targeting areas that are certain to give them more votes, ensuring anything but an unbiased result. Now the Republicans are forced to threaten a recount in other counties that are strong Republican areas, and the Democrats are calling them hypocrits. The Republicans have no choice because allowing the multiple selective recounts will certainly result in a Gore administration.
Seriously, Gore will win this fight I fear. He is far more used to this type of game than Bush is. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
What do you guys figure the point of this is ?
I would think the actual intended vote is what is important.
Not whether the ballot was illegal/legal.
Not whether the people who screwed up are stupid.
Just curious how most people feel.
Regards, Snoopi
------------------------------------------
A Quote from a friend of mine.
"THE THEORY OF STATISICAL STUPIDITY:
If you are in the top 50% of the population with regard to intelligence..
Then most of the people you meet are dumber than you."
Obvious, but kinda scary.
It also explains a lot about how your day went. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Snoopi (edited 11-12-2000).]
-
Snoopi-
What is important is that the government not invest in the divination business, that is, not trying to guess what I intended when I cast my vote. The fundamental problem, or divergence of thinking anyway, is whether or not you want the government controlling too much of your life. Telling people what they really meant to do is pretty darn close to me.
What next? I became a teacher, but the government decides I meant to be a ditch digger. I live in Indiana, but they decide I meant to live in New York. Get the idea?
There is no way to put this egg back together. There is no way to redo the vote without changing what the outcome would have been. The DNC does not care, they don't care about the precedent set here, they are going to go at all costs for the office.
There is no perfect solution. Would I want the will of the people done? Yes. But changing the rules to get the outcome you desire is not sane. The constitution makes our government rigid enough not to have flippant changes (such as the suggestions of Hillary on electoral college).
Here I sit listening once again to some DNC talking head talk about abolishing the electoral college. Naturally he is from D.C., a huge metropolitan area that would be one of perhaps a dozen large U.S. cities that would have any voice in government should that proposal become law. Kiss the Republican party good-bye, or any other party for that matter.
And don't you think it odd that the Democrats want to hand count votes only in Democratic strongholds? That they resist the suggestion that the Republicans go and recount Republican strongholds? That they think it would be wrong for the Republicans to contest states where the vote is close? After all, don't they want to see what the "will of the people" is?
No. They want to keep juggling the data until it is Gore. Fairness has not one single thing to do with this whole affair.
-
The recount doesn't bother me one bit. What does bother me is this recount by hand that the counters are to determine the "intent" of the voter. If there are Democrat choices made elsewhere and Buchanan was chosen as President, then, of course, the voter must have really wanted Gore and made a mistake therefore thay are to count the vote for Gore. Also, as stated by the Repubs, this process opens up the floodgate for potential error (good old human error, that is), the risk of having the vote tampered with purposefully, and the risk of damaging the ballots from excesive handling... the paper is cheap guys!
We may as well resign ourselves to a Gore presidency, through lawyer trickery and typical Republican buffoonery/lack of "testicular fortitude", we're gonna lose this fight.
T
-
Sorry, any interpretation of the voter's intent to vote Gore from a ballot marked Buchanan would constitute fraud.
Any legal measure taken to pass the Buchanan votes to Gore would be thrown out of court.
The government is already determining your will in this matter: someone's got to read the ballot and say how many there are. I don't see how you can argue from "The Government's job is to determine the will of the people as expressed in popular elections"
to "If we let the government determine as accurately as possible the will of the people in this area, then they will arbitrarily determine what we want to do for us." That kinda slippery slope doesn't seem justified.
-
Kieren: Just the kind of input I was looking for. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The reason I asked what the point was:
I see a lot of posts that imply stupid people's votes are less important.
I.E. if they are dumb then screw them.
I agree that any ballot, that is in question, for any reason, should not be counted, otherwise the risk of tampering is there.
Those who have bad eyesight or misunderstand, should be helped to realize that they can ask questions in regards to the ballot BEFORE they vote.
(I am assuming this is OK in the U.S.)
At this point, they should just do a recount of VALID ballots and call it done. Anything else is too "dangerous".
I see this whole thing as a no win situation. No matter the outcome the doubt will be there.
IN regards to the "Damn Democrats" "Damn Republicans" kinda posts....
If the tables were turned, the Republicans would no doubt be maneuvering too. That is what politicians do.
Republicans ? Democrats ? who cares ? On paper they look the same.
It seems the REAL government is those who have the money to fund, lobby etc.
Just like the O.J. trial made a joke of the U.S. Criminal System.
Unfortunately, this fiasco might make a laughing stock of the U.S. Political System.
I fear it already has. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[This message has been edited by Snoopi (edited 11-14-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Snoopi:
Those who have bad eyesight or misunderstand, should be helped to realize that they can ask questions in regards to the ballot BEFORE they vote.
The reason the election supervisor designed the ballot the way she did (as I read in news stories, and how they quoted her anyway) was to use a larger type because there are alot of older people in Palm Beach county. She was trying to help them from the start, making the ballot easier to read, with larger type. Kudos to her for doing that.
Where the "stupidity" comes in is, IMO, a lack of personal responsibility. The right to vote is one of the most solemn rights we have. Rushing through your ballot because you dinnae want to be late for the bridge club isn't a valid reason to ask for a revote or even to complain.
The picture of the ballot, in the machine, shows just how easy it is to select your candidate. Each candidate and thier running mate are in thier own box, and each box has an arrow pointing to the proper punch hole. I can't see any bases for claims of a confusing ballot. Especially when a voter can ask for, and recieve, a new ballot to correct any mistakes (and the old ballot is discarded).
I blame people for not taking the time and personal responsibility to make sure they were voting for thier candidate. If they dinnae understand the ballot they could ask someone for help. But, frankly, I can't see why they would need to unless they forgot thier glasses (and if vanity kept them from asking for help they deserve what they got IMO).
-
I agree wholeheartedly CavemanJ !
Kudos to the Election supervisor too.
I wasn't sure what the "rules" where in the U.S.
In Canada if you screw up the ballot and let them know, they will destroy that ballot and give you a new one. If you have any questions, you just ask and they will explain the ballot.
From what you posted it seems the same rules apply.
Do people realize this ??
If "THEY" don't, I think they should find out how it works.
Maybe an education campaign next time ?
Then again you can't make a horse drink. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
It would probably just be another fruitless waste of tax money and time spent on trying to eliminate stupidity.
Like you stated, taking responsibility is the issue.
I understand only 50% of the population turned out to vote. ?
It is amazing how people in democratic countries take it for granted.
(then whine about who gets elected)
A old buddy of mine escaped from Vilnius, Lithuania (then U.S.S.R.) in the early '70s.
HE understands and values his right to vote in Canada, and is disgusted and confused
by those who don't.
Regards,
Snoopi
-
Before the propaganda gods start believing their own print, let me square a few things away.
1. The first recount in Florida was done by state law anytime there is a close election.
2. The hand count is at the request of the Democrats because of 30,000 discounted votes and is also provided for in Florida state law for cases of either voter fraud or mechanical counting problems.
3. The Republican party is filing in federal court to stop the recount. Despite claiming to support states rights they are filing to override them. They have lost there case BTW and the hand count is happening as it has in other elections around the country ie. Massachusetts 2 years ago where a hand count overturned a congressional election.
4. Rip was right when he said Palm beach county is only partially Jewish. However the statement "most Jews hate him for marrying a Catholic" is not a true statement. First I didn't know she was Catholic? Her name is Haddasa which is a very traditional Jewish name. I would be surprised if she was not Jewish with that name. Secondly I have never heard that mentioned, much less any animosity towards him or his decision.
I think most Jews (including myself) are just surprised that their is a Jewish VP candidate that has done so well.
Later
F4UDOA
-
Well F4, you didn't even make it 24 hours from your post in Pyro's topic about not wanting to participate in these discussions before you are back in one.
Methinks he doth protest too much! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I'm not going to plow old ground over illegal ballots and who sued first...it's not worth re-discussion.
Two situational questions, though, on your stand here and please be honest:
If this situation was exactly reversed and Bush was the one that stood to gain from manual recounts, what would your position be? Would you be concerned that essentially ALL of the officers of the Canvassing Boards were Republican? Would you suspect those sneaky Republicans were going to fudge the results until their guy won? Particularly after 3 machine recounts showed your guy winning?
Second, when this big wahoo finally ends...IF Bush is the winner, will you accept the result? Or will you press for further counts or litigation up to the Supreme Court?
-
Toad,
First I did not say that I would not participate in these conversations anymore. What I did say is that there should be another offline board not including politics or religion, more humor oriented topics.
I think you took what I said and rearranged the words to suit your needs. You must have learned that from the Republicans and how they read the constitution (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Anyway I have had the same question put to me by a Republican friend. And my answer is this. Al Gore owe's it to me and 50,000,000 other people that voted for him to make sure that the vote count in Florida is as accurate as possible before he concedes the Presidency to Bush. Bush owes the same to the other almost 50,000,000 people to make sure the vote count is as accurate as possible. What Bush has done is try to block examination of 30,000 American votes that were thrown away. What he has not done was ask for a recount of 26,000 votes in Duval County Florida which was a Republican majority. This tells me he is not interested in the decision of the voters but the outcome of the Electoral college. And while this has been going on the Republicans had a Hand recount of votes in New Mexico which nearly led to Bush winning the state. But notice that Gore never opposed that recount.
BTW, I just got done watching Bushes speech tonight on TV. He has said at least 5 times during the first 30 seconds that all votes were counted. This is not true. I other words this is a lie. This man has not even been made president yet and he already feels compelled to lie to me when I know that the opposite is true. And he is not lying about who he slept with either. He is lying about a matter of national interest. I can already see that the next four years will be an economic and foreign disaster for this country and the people on this board will believe anything.
I have another name for the Republican party. The Stepford wife's.
Later'
F4UDOA
Oh yeah, your second question. If the hand count votes are not admitted I say push it through the courts. Why would I want to leave that decision in the hands of a Republican Secratary of state who's boss is Jeb Bush? If the Hand count is accepted then I say that is final.
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-15-2000).]
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
To save some clicking time, this is what you said.
"Pyro,
Yes please.
Even I can hardly stand the message boards these day's. It is turning friends into enemies and even more so, turning my relaxation into frustration. I am even ready to deal with more C-hog whining.
So please add another off topic thread just for political bantering so I can get back to the business of enjoying my spare time.
Thanks
F4UDOA"
Excuse me if I thought that meant that you didn't enjoy this. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I see you did not answer the first question. I could be as snide as you and say "I guess you learned that...." but I try not to do that stuff. In light of your second answer, I'm particularly interested in how you'd feel if ALL the Canvassing Officers were Republicans and they were doing the hand counts? Would that give you the warm fuzzy of fairness?
At least you did answer the second one. Looks like that one is going to the courts itself. I'll spectate along with the rest of the US.
<Edit 1> BTW, I see you continue to use the word "recount" in relation to New Mexico. Can you direct me to your source? All I can find is information about ballots that were initially overlooked and NOT COUNTED in the first tally. These ballots have not been RE-counted as far as I can tell. They have simply been "counted". This is NOT the case in FL, where the PBC ballots have been MACHINE COUNTED three times.
So, what or where is your source for the NM "re-count" please? Thx.
<Edit 2> I also would like your source or sources for the reference to "of 30,000 American votes that were thrown away".
I found this on CNN.com"
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/10/ballot.confusion/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/10/ballot.confusion/index.html)
"Palm Beach County election officials said 19,120 ballots were voided because they were double-punched."
You are aware that a double-punched ballot is illegal and uncountable because no man or machine can legitimately determine which candidate is the voter's actual true choice?
Are these 19,120 ballots part of your 30,000 total F4? If so, please explain how a double-punched ballot can legitimately be counted?
What other "votes" are you including in this 30,000 total? I'd like to keep this discussion to the facts, as I am sure you would also.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-15-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
<<edit: it ain't worth it.>>
Fury
[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-15-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
Toad,
I thought I answered your first question?
Anyway I did say that I am not enjoying these political debates anymore. But I did not say that I would no longer participate. I would like to see another off topic board for humor so I don't feel compelled to reply every time I view a thread. This thread is titled "explain this". I wasn't looking for another vote count debate when I viewed it. But once again all of the replies were republican biased. How would you feel if you were the only Republican in a Democratic forum?
Anyway I learned of the New Mexico "recount"
on TV. I do not spend allot of time perusing the internet looking for cannon fodder. From what I understand the entire state was recounted with some hand counting in certain districts. The First recount had Bush ahead by 17 votes and then Gore by approx. 300 more.
In Florida there are 19,000 votes that were double punched and rejected by the machines. The other 10,000 did not register any vote and were also rejected by the machines. However if you watched 60minutes II on Tuesday you would see why. Many of the "Chads" or punch outs on the cards did not detach from the ballots and caused an error in the machine. These are the ballots that are at the center of the hand count controversy. These are valid votes and there are 10,000 of them. More than enough for either candidate to win convincingly. This is one of the reasons under Florida Law that would call for a hand count. Mechanical failure to read ballots or voter fraud.
This is why when George Doubleya says that all votes have been counted I say he is lying and he knows it.
Your other question is, would I feel comfortable in the reverse situation if Republicans were doing the hand count.
The answer is of course not. However I guarantee you if it was reversed Gore would have people overseeing the process instead of sticking his head in the sand and trying to discount 30,000 people.
I will research a source for New Mexico.
Let me ask you a question. You are a hardline Republican. Who is the top 3 Republican Presidents since 1930 and why?
I'll give you my top 3 Democrats.
1. Roosevelt-Brought country out of Depression. Fought against isolationist and brought US into WW2.
2. Kennedy-Backed Soviets down in Cuban Missile crises. Started campaign to send a man to the moon. Was last Pres. to be loved by the people.
3. Clinton- Has overseen the Country during greatest economic growth in the countries history.
Later
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Who is the top 3 Republican Presidents since 1930 and why?
I'll give you my top 3 Democrats.
1. Roosevelt-Brought country out of Depression. Fought against isolationist and brought US into WW2.
2. Kennedy-Backed Soviets down in Cuban Missile crises. Started campaign to send a man to the moon. Was last Pres. to be loved by the people.
3. Clinton- Has overseen the Country during greatest economic growth in the countries history.
Later
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-16-2000).]
Ok...can't resist here..too easy. First my rebuttals to your candidates.
1.) Good Leader, Very true..no arguments. But was a womanizer. May not mean much to you, but does to me.
2.) Barely won first election, (can you say voter fraud), and is only beloved because of his tragic assassination. Would have been lucky to win second term...and can you say covert operations and Vietnam. Also, a womanizer...getting a common thread here.
3.) Can you say Alan Greenspan!! I know you can. Also a womanizer and in legal terms a sexual harrasser.
Top Reps.
1.) Eisenhower--Aside from keeping the military alliance together and focused to win the war, his plans and backing for the nationwide Interstate system is really what spurred and continues to help maintain our economic prosperiety. How you ask, Commerce moves on wheels, thats how. Brought an end to the Korean hostilities, that a Dem started.
2.) Nixon. Great foriegn coups with China and bringing an end to Vietnam hostilities that a Dem started (oops, another common theme). His War on Cancer program has benefited more lives than Clinton's suppossed economic programs ever will.
3.) Reagan. Just a little thing called winning the Cold War. And say what you want about the man, but he uplifted this nation after the Carter years and galvinized our can do spirit just as much as FDR.
Cobra
-
I think it's funny how the Demos keep saying it's the Repubs that are stalling everything but it's the Demos that have all the lawsuits going.
The Demos say follow the state laws but when a decision is done they say ..no they are Repubs so their decisions no matter how legal they are should not count unless they are in our favor.
I wish they would stick to the truth and facts not opinions from partisons.
[This message has been edited by Mighty1 (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
Our military was pathetic from 1976-1980...the soviets took advantage of this by invading Afgan, and Iran took hostages, knowing the US was a bird with clipped wings...Carter got up in front of millions on his state of the union address in late '79 and made a statement saying he was wrong about the military, that we were indeed hurting (Just saw this on the History channel last night).
Well, Reagan did two great things, he built the military back up, made the other agressive nations think twice about taking advantage of us, and gave us a great economy by appointing Greenspan. Greenspans policies regarding inflation and the market is why we flourished in the 90's...to think that it was a republican House and Senate, or Clinton, is beyond rediculous.
-
F4....
Don't worry, you will get what you want.
Ice
-
F4,
I still find your logic a bit confusing on the O/T issue.
F4: I would like to see another off topic board for humor so I don't feel compelled to reply every time I view a thread.
Are you saying if there was an official "O/T Humor" topic you would only read that one and not read this one?
Or are you saying if there was an offical "O/T Humor" topic you would be able to read this one and not feel compelled to reply?
Or are you saying you need the BBS moderators to protect you from yourself? A "Help me before I post again!" plea for help from the controlling agency? (http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net6/yyicon24.gif)
Let me save you some time on the NM "recount" research. According to the CNN and USA Today websites there has been NO New Mexico recount. There have been "first counts" of ballots that were misplaced or overlooked. All ballots are now being impounded by the NM state police IN CASE a need for an actual "recount" is determined.
Sorry, but I view the continued use of "NM Recount" by you on this board as an attempt to legitimize and justify what is going on in FL. However, New Mexico HAS NOT recounted; therefore any attempt to link the two situations is flawed from the start. It's basically the old "Red Herring" fallacy.
So, please, if you are going to argue these points, at least don't try to obscure the issue with incorrect information.
You are doing the same thing with the "trying to discount 30,000 people" argument. You know that double punched ballots are not acceptable no matter how you count them.
Therefore, 19,100 people in PBC disenfranchised themselves by double punching their ballot. Those voters alone are responsible for the fate of those ballots. Yet you continually seek to portray the disallowance of these 19,100 as part of a sinister plot.
Therefore, in your "30,000" quotes, at best you should be talking about 10,900 PBC ballots that "did not register any vote." I went looking on CNN and USA Today for that number. I could not find it. I found one reference to "some" ballots that did not register any vote. I found another that used the term "several thousand" ballots that did not register any votes.
I ask you now to use accurate language in your arguments. the 30,000 is misleading incorrect rhetoric and you know it. 10,900 is almost certainly misleading rhetoric and incorrect as well. I think "several thousand" might be supportable. Might.
So, again, let's at least TRY to argue from fact without distorting an already muddled situation.
Perhaps the primary reason I took to posting replys to the liberals on this board is because of the near total absence of fact in their inflammatory arguments. There is ever so much unsupported opinion and tons of inflammatory rhetoric but rarely any sound logical argument supported by fact. (Not that some of the conservatives are any better. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
Lastly, I am once again amused by your attempt to categorize me as a "hardline Republican". I've pointed out before that I voted Republican in 4 of 8 Presidential elections. Don't think the Republicans would claim me as hardline. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My personal political outlook is pretty simple. Use common sense when approaching a problem. Do the best you can with the resources you have. Don't lose sight of the ultimate goal when beset by problems. Act in an honorable, dignified manner. Never surrender your integrity. Be responsible for your actions and inactions. Be accountable for your actions and inactions.
Now I haven't seen a Republican or a Democrat candidate in the last 32 years that really filled that bill. I guess I am expecting too much.
But "me a Republican"? It's exactly as funny and wrong as "me a Democrat"! (http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net6/laugh2.gif)
As far as Presidents, no point in me posting. I don't share your belief that the man in the office has the power you attribute to them.
For example, the argument has been repeatedly made that WW2 brought the US out of the "Great Depression". Massive government spending and full employment, so to speak. Can Roosevelt then take credit for that?
Kennedy backed the Russians down in Cuba? Gee, F4U, when I flew recon for NSA we monitored Russian pilots in Russian Migs practicising nuke delivery profiles in Cuba. There's a bit more I know but I won't post as I signed a little agreement with the US government (Oh, it was a "Democratic" government at that time). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Clinton simply was in office during an economic boom and thus is enshrined in the "Presidential Hall of Fame"? Good thing there's no "Presidential Hall of Shame". (http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net6/laugh2.gif)
Besides, be careful with the knife, it cuts both ways. These "good years" are not just the result of who sits in the oval office, just as the "bad years" are the results of other factors as well. Economic business cycles have a lot to do with it, so do "baby boomer" demographics as an explanation of prosperity.
If Gore gets in and the economy tanks for 4 years, will it be solely Gore's fault? No, I don't think so...it's not that simplistic.
-
Mighty1,
Why do you say that it is the Dems that are slowing things down. This Hand count could be done if not for the Republican efforts to stop it. Also the Republicans not the Dems have taken this to Federal court. Even though the Republicans say that they are in favor of states rights. Until it becomes inconveniant I guess.
Cobra,
If we can keep this civil it may actually turn into a conversation.
1.) Eisenhower--Aside from keeping the military alliance together and focused to win the war, his plans and backing for the nationwide Interstate system is really what spurred and continues to help maintain our economic prosperiety. How you ask, Commerce moves on wheels, thats how. Brought an end to the Korean hostilities, that a Dem started.
Great Guy but he did that stuff before he was president. Even as a General he was more of a politician. Patton once described him as "The best secratary I ever had". I also wouldn't say that he ended the Korean war. Gen. Vandergrift and Gen.Macarthor had more to do with stablizing South Korea than Eisenhower. BTW South Korea is a strong allie to this day. I am not an isolationest so we will disagree on that one.
2.) Nixon. Great foriegn coups with China and bringing an end to Vietnam hostilities that a Dem started (oops, another common theme). His War on Cancer program has benefited more lives than Clinton's suppossed economic programs ever will.
Well your leaving out that he was impeached as a thief trying to steal an election. His work in China was good. As far as any othe achievements consider he was only in office for a very short while. The Majority of cancer research in this country has been done well after him. I don't like LBJ very much but again I am in favor of protecting our allies. Are you ok with what Po Pot(SP) and the communist did in Cambodia?
3.) Reagan. Just a little thing called winning the Cold War. And say what you want about the man, but he uplifted this nation after the Carter years and galvinized our can do spirit just as much as FDR.
As much as FDR? Really? We fought a world war with FDR, we fought a spending war with Reagan. Hardly a comparison. BTW, 200 Marines died in Beruit without ammo to defend themselves. That was a Republican call. He also lied about trading hostages for guns with Iran and was knee deep in the Iran Contra affair in which he had his subordinates take the blame, then pardon them later. Nice moves.
1.) Good Leader, Very true..no arguments. But was a womanizer. May not mean much to you, but does to me.
2.) Barely won first election, (can you say voter fraud), and is only beloved because of his tragic assassination. Would have been lucky to win second term...and can you say covert operations and Vietnam. Also, a womanizer...getting a common thread here.
3.) Can you say Alan Greenspan!! I know you can. Also a womanizer and in legal terms a sexual harrasser
I can see you don't like men who run around.
But womanizing is not sexual harassment. It is sex between two consenting adults. BTW George Washington had the same reputation. It is a common thread amoung men in history. Hardly a defining characteristic. Remember if your father didn't harass your mother, you wouldn't be here.
Roosevelt- The Greatest president since Lincoln. He supported all classes of people as well as the need to be envloved in world politics at a time where that was not popular.
Kennedy- People like to throw Illinios around with Kennedy but the fact is he won the Election with or without Illinios. It wasn't that close.
Clinton- Greenspan changes the interest rates. He had nothing to do with the budget for the last 8 years. And Clinton pulled us out of Somalia. A place where a Republican left us. And we are still in Iraq fro the last Republican pres. all to save the great Domocracy of, Kuwait??
You are basing your opinions on two things.
1. Womanizing
2. Isolationist
By that standard you should like Nevil Chamberlin over Winston Churchill. He signed a peace treaty with Hitler and didn't fool around.
Later F4UDOA
-
ok....
Them 'pubs are responsible for the delay.....
10+ court actions from dems
1 from 'pubs.
Seems to me it's them dems trying to rewrite laws and pitch the constitution.
And let's not forget the dems pushing for hand recounts ONLY in democratic strong holds. That's fishing for votes and nothing else. Where's the fair and accurate in that? Gore's proposal to do a state wide hand recount was nothing but a PR move.
And what about Gore's Gorons threatening Broward county when they stopped thier hand count and said it was pointless? Out of the same recount they did I believe they found only 4 votes for Gore (I'd have to go look it up again). Broward county has taken up the hand recount again, probably under immense pressure from the Gorons (threats of lawsuits can be immense pressure) and have only found an addition 7 votes for Gore.
taken from: http://msnbc.com/news/466882.asp (http://msnbc.com/news/466882.asp)
Broward: Officials there reversed course Wednesday and granted the Gore campaign’s request for a hand recount of all of the county’s 588,000 ballots. As of Wednesday night, they had counted 45 of the 609 precincts, adding seven votes to Gore’s total and none to Bush’s.
Lessee.. lying about the count....
the votes were counted, twice, by the machines. Once for the election, and the second time because FL law triggered the recount because of how close the election was. Then a few counties counted them again. Loose chads hanging out.... ever stop to think they could be loose from too much handling? The ballots are only paper though. While I'm sure there were some that weren't completely punched, there are others that have been left hanging because of excessive handling.
Now you're talking about devining a voter's intentions. What if they dinnae case a vote for president, but one of the chads partially broke loose because of excessive handling? That voter is now credited with a vote they choose to not cast. Yes, this is hypothetical, but it is still well within the bounds of reality.
Now let's discuss the human factor of hand recounts, and yes this will include some speculation, but we'll stay within the bounds of reality. And let's not forget that people have feelings, often strong ones, about politics (note: people, not just dems). That's where the fudge factor comes in. Let's say there's a ballot with no presidential vote cast (and no loose chad either) that the hand counter comes across. If noone is paying too much attention (or everyone present is of the same party/mindset) what's to stop this person(s) from punching out the chad to count the vote? Nothing. Then you've also got blanant vote theft, blamed on human error. This can (and probably does) happen on both sides.
Then there's good old fashioned human error. Looking at it and misreading where the hole is. After looking at the same things over and over and over and over ad nauseum that's a very real possibility. I know I've misread things when I've been doing the same thing over and over all day. Are these canvassing people to be regarded as superhuman and infallible to this type of mistake? I think not.
I'm opposed to ANY hand recount, save counting write in candidates since a machine can't read those. And it's kinda hard (in most cases) to misread the name printed. Whenever people do something human nature must be factored into it.
Now if you want to get a 'pub offical and a dem offical and a neutral 3rd party (call switzerland) together and each one look at each ballot and agree on it, I'll shut up. Otherwise I'll say no to any hand recount.
-
Toad,
I am going to make this a quick post as I am starving and need to go eat something.
1. My position on two offline boards is this.
One board for humor, one board for politics. That way I won't look at the political one when I am not in the mood. Hey, sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't.
2. Therefore, in your "30,000" quotes, at best you should be talking about 10,900 PBC ballots that "did not register any vote." I went looking on CNN and USA Today for that number. I could not find it. I found one reference to "some" ballots that did not register any vote. I found another that used the term "several thousand" ballots that did not register any votes.
Quote
"In Palm Beach County there were problems with only 6 percent of the ballots - but that's 30,000 votes more than enough to throw this election, where the margin between the candidates in Florida is only a few hundred."
I just pulled that off of the CBS website. It took about20 seconds to find. I'm sure I can give you more 30,000 vote references without to much trouble.
3. New Mexico- Check this link and click on New Mexico. http://www.msnbc.com/m/v/video_news.asp (http://www.msnbc.com/m/v/video_news.asp)
and this artical.
Lead Change in New Mexico
In addition to Iowa, the presidential vote between Gore and Bush remains remarkably close in New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin.
A mistake similar to the one in Iowa has given Gore an additional 500 votes in the southwestern state and apparently vaulted him back into the lead there.
Rita Torres, the clerk in New Mexico’s Dona Ana County, said Monday that election workers had misread a 600-vote absentee total for Gore in one precinct, mistakenly thinking the figure was 100.
“They wrote a six that looked like a one,” said Torres. “That’s where the 500 for Gore comes from.” But Torres added that the county canvassing board had not certified the new total.
Currently, Gore leads in New Mexico by 374 votes with nearly 600,000 ballots cast, according to The Associated Press.
Later
I'm Hungry
F4UDOA
-
F4UDOA,
Your last tagline about Chamberlain and Hitler did not keep it civil....so much for that I guess.
And in Clinton's case, his acts were in violation of Sexual Harrassment Laws, not to mention Purjury laws. You know it and I know it.
I am not a Dove or Isolationist, and if you wish to keep it civil as you claimed, you would refrain from labels.
You sir, are not sincere in that, and you know it as well.
And nice attempt at revisionist history. I will add this, extremist's on either side are equally dispicable. You qualify!
Good Day and Good Bye,
Cobra
[This message has been edited by Cobra (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
I have got to say my quick piece on the whole "confusing ballot thing"
A) If you cant read or see where the hell those ARROWS -----> are pointing, see your eye doctor before you vote.
and B) SAMPLE BALLOTS WERE SENT OUT PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. As far as I know, everyone recieves a sample ballot in the mail that is A DUPLICATE OF THE ONE TO BE USED IN THE ACTUAL VOTE. Soooooo, all those people who are complaining about the ballot being unclear or (God help us) too complicated, had AT LEAST a couple weeks to LOOK at the ballot.
Now all of a sudden, "By golly that ballot was unclear!" If you cant figure out the ballot after a couple weeks of looking at one, I say they have an armed gaurd to keep you out of the voting booth!
Tread
[This message has been edited by treadhead1 (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Quote
"In Palm Beach County there were problems with only 6 percent of the ballots - but that's 30,000 votes more than enough to throw this election, where the margin between the candidates in Florida is only a few hundred."
That statement, as it stands, is correct. There apparently were problems with 30,000 ballots.
What it fails to mention is that 19,100 of these 30,000 ballots were DOUBLE-PUNCHED for the Presidential race. This, as I am SURE you will agree, is an Illegal, Unacceptable ballot.
Yet you persist in trying to incorrectly make that case that the evil "THEY" are "trying to discount 30,000 people".
Say it F4...it will set you free..."In PBC, 19,100 people disenfranchised themselves by double-punching their ballots." (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Now, of the remaining 10,900 that are not "counting", I have been unable to find a definitive sight that categorically delineates why they aren't counting.
Some aren't punched at all. That number has been mentioned as "some" and "several thousand" on the sites I've looked at. The other unknown amount apparently have some other problem that keeps them from counting.
If you have better information, I'd like to see it.
With respect to New Mexico. There is still no substantiation of a RECOUNT of ballots. They have found ballots that were initially missed and they have corrected hand written errors in addition.
They have NOT RECOUNTED. Once again, you seek to legitimize Florida's recount process of ballots that have been machine counted THREE times through a New Mexico example that does not exist.
In the vernacular, you're blowing smoke. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Orginally posted by F4 (cut and paste quote)
"And while this has been going on the Republicans had a Hand recount of votes in New Mexico which nearly led to Bush winning the state. But notice that Gore never opposed that recount. "
Which recount was that?
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/16/recounts.elsewhere/ (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/16/recounts.elsewhere/)
Don't take my word for it, take a few minutes to read for yourself. As of this posting, it appears that Republicans have not asked for a recount anywhere in the country. That is, if you can trust cnn.
<<edit: cnn now reports that Mr. Bush will not ask for a recount in Iowa, even though Mr. Gore won by a slim margin>>
Now maybe they will or maybe they won't. But right now, it's just not happening.
Also, look at New Mexico's spin on democracy in action: it's legal for a coin toss or a card game is to choose the winner (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (in case of a tie). Believe it or not, it was last done with one hand of 5 card poker in December 1999.
Fury
[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-16-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
Collier County: one example of why human counting is dangerous.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/15/collier.letter.ap/ (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/15/collier.letter.ap/)
Quote from this page:
"An additional ballot was received October 18, 2000, and accepted. Upon opening, it was ascertained to be a ballot card for the first primary election. Upon further investigation of this ballot, it was determined that the voter had voted for the general election using a first primary ballot card."
IMHO this is a shining example of why hand counting cannot always be trusted. They actually accepted a primary ballot as a general election ballot because they "determined" that the voter used the wrong card.
Now, it does not say if this was a Republican or Democratic vote. I don't think it matters. Recounters deducing what you really voted for are what scares me.
Fury
-
There is only one reason for a hand count.
Cheating.
-
My last political comment for the year 2000:
Funny how George W Bush has no problem with recounts being done by hand in New Mexico where it will switch the state from Al Gore to him.
Funny how George W Bush signed a bill into law in Texas that mandated manually recounts in exceedingly tight elections.
Seems that George W Bush has no problem with hand recounts unless they could alter the outcome of an election agaist him.
Its also funny how Al Gore didn't object to the hand recount in New Mexico.
Another funny thing about George W Bush is how he said, before the election, that if he won the popular vote and lost the electoral college he would mount a massive campaign to get members of the electoral college, and the public to push the electoral college, to vote for him instead of the technical winner, AL Gore.
Now that Al Gore has, unexpectedly, won the popular vote and the electoral college is disputed, Bush thinks that Al Gore should just give up.
Seems that "the good of the nation" only matters if it is Al Gore doing the conceeding.
Funny that.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Cobra,
You went from zero to Spaz so fast I'm not even sure what your objecting too? Next...
Toad,
30,000 is the total number of votes discounted. You make it seem as if 30,000 people walked into the polling booths with the idea in mind that they didn't want their votes to count? Even if you discounted the 19,200 people that double punched the ballot it still leaves you with 10,000 ballots that the machine could not read. Under Florida law there are two reasons that warrant a hand count.
1. Voter Fraud
2. Mechanical failure to count votes
Sounds like 10,000 reasons to have a hand count to me. I may be blowing smoke Toad but I think you are inhaling it. You don't want them to break the law do you?
If I am wrong about New Mexico I will admit it. But if I am wrong explain how the vote count has changed so may times without re-examining the ballots?
BTW, you have chosen to attack but not to answer any of my questions.
1. Why is Bush using the Federal courts. I thought Bush believed in states rights?
2. Who were the top three Republican presidents from the last 70years?
3. You made a statement about your knowledge of Soviet and Cuban activities during the 60's. Why don't you explain George Bush's decision in 1991 to sell Iraq weapons until three months before we declared war on them. And why we fought a war to protect a Kuwait dictatorship that paid us 3 billion dollars to assist. Where did that money go? Did it go into the deficit, the budget or Government defense contractors?
BTW, all governments do mock invasions and play war games. In the 60's our Government used US civilian targets to do Nuke strike scoring. This is not an indication of intent.
1.This past week on 60 minutes a Russian Colonel was interviewed and said that he was instructed to fire ballistic missiles at the USA in 1983. He refused the order because he suspected a mechanical failure and he was right.
2. In 1972 during the Yom Kipper war Israel captured the Suez canal. The Soviets threatened a full scale invasion of Israel and war against the US if the Suez was not turned over to the Egyptians. Reportedly Nixon was drunk and would not come out of his bedroom so Henry Kissinger was forced to negotiate with the Soviets and Israel.
3. Kennedy made the decision to blockade the Russian ships based on intelligence he had from a Soviet Spy assuring the US that the Soviets did not have the Nuclear capability to fight a war with the US. The concession made by the US was the removal of short range nuclear weapons from Turkey.
4. Who was the last Democrat you voted for?
Later
F4UDOA
-
As an unbiased Canadian observer I have the following thoughts.
Because the machine counts reflect neither Democratic or Republican interest, I think you'll find that a complete Florida recount would yeild the same result. I'm sure Bush must have lost alot of votes in the same manner in Republican stongholds.
The charge that Democrats only want the peoples vote to be counted and implying that the Republicans are against this is very dirty politics considering that there has been 3 counts and in some cases 4 counts already. I believe that the Republican position that the hand recounts on already over handled ballots is more prone to a wrong count than the original counts is very reasonable.
I find the democrats trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of Americans. The line the other day saying that hand counts served our fathers for 140 years just fine quite disgusting. I'm sure they would have accepted mechanical counts as a better way had technology allowed it, just as technology has allowed us absentee voting today where in most cases it was nearly impossible in other eras.
Lastly, the question of a Presidential mandate is getting on my nerves too. I believe that either Gore or Bush will have as much of a mandate as any other President of the US. It doesn't matter how slim the vote is - they are all slim if you consider the big picture.
Lets say one of the candidates wins by 1,000,000 votes out of 70,000,000 cast. Do you call that a mandate because the victor has a 1% margin? Yet you'd call it a significant margin! The bottom line (IMO) the people of the US have voted their two best choices for President and both represent the will of the people to a large degree inspite of some differences.
-
F4,
"You make it seem as if 30,000 people walked into the polling booths with the idea in mind that they didn't want their votes to count?
Not at all. 96% of the PBC voters knew how to vote. I'm pointing out that 19,100 of those people invalidated their own ballots.
No one was trying to "cheat" them. They just weren't up to the task and it's their own fault. Their intent may have been to vote. They failed to do so correctly.
Sounds like 10,000 reasons
So at last we agree? 30,000 is just inflammatory rhetoric? Good! That's all I was asking you to do...stick to the facts.
Doesn't mean I agree with you, but at least your numbers are more realistic. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Two biggest changes in NM were in correcting addition and finding additional valid ballots.
One of the tally sheets showed what was first interpreted to be a "1" in the hundreds column and later interpreted to be a "6". This is pretty widely spread over the news sites. It's not a re-examination of ballots, it's a re-examination of addition.
Additionally, there have been some "found" ballots that were "missed" in the first count. That isn't a recount, either. It's a "first count" that's added to the original total.
I didn't answer your questions because you just asked them. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I did answer the one about Presidents. You just don't understand the answer, I guess.
Presidents, IMHO, rarely shape the opportunities that occur. They react to situations that occur.
For example, Roosevelt. Not discussing the man, here, just the situation. How would he be viewed had their been no WW2 to lift the US out of the Depression? No WW2 that allowed him to demonstrate his leadership?
In short, some Presidents live in interesting times. Some don't. Those that don't never have their true capabilities tested, do they?
If I had to pick one Republican in the recent past it would be Reagan. For all his faults (and he had them), he was able to provide "that vision thing" that has since totally eluded all of his successors. He made us proud to be us again. For that alone, I salute him.
As for the rest, it would be pretty hard to answer all of those; you seem to be throwing cr*p into the air to confuse the present issue. If you'd like to take them one at a time in detail, start separate threads. Otherwise.....
First of all, some are based on speculation or incorrect information, not fact. Secondly, you seem to assume one can devine the true intent of any leader's action. Sorry, I don't have a crystal ball either.
On the nuke capability, about all I can say is that folks right up to the top were pretty concerned when we found the Russians practicing. While you disregard it, many in power viewed it as proof of capability. Intent was not the question; the question was "Could they?" and the answer was clearly "yes". Previously, the "standard view" was that they did not have the capability or equipment, intent not withstanding.
Then the cover up began with the attendent shifting of blame. That's probably where I knew I wasn't staying in the AF and when I finally believed that the US political system was rotten on both sides of the aisle.
I do so hate to disappoint you but I voted for Democrats in this election. Just not for President!
You can't pigeon-hole me as a Republican because I simply don't fit any mold. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
Toad,
Sorry if I confused you with too much information.
I will consolidate my questions.
1. Why is Bush using the Federal courts when it is clearly a states issue? The republican party is built on the idea of states rights. Why change now?
2. What do you propose to do with the 10,000 out of 30,000 votes that have been discarded but can still be considered valid votes by even your standards? Don't these people deserve a chance to be heard?
3. Who was the last Democratic Presidential candidate you voted for?
Later
F4UDOA
-
The propaganda machine must be running full-tilt about New Mexico.
Nobody asked me, but since I became legal age in 1980 I voted Democratic in every election until 1992, when I voted Independent. There was no way I would vote Clinton in '96, and I chose Bush this election. In case anyone cares.
Fury
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Toad,
Sorry if I confused you with too much information.
You didn't confuse me at all. But you certainly were sidetracking the thread. Those questions can't be answered in a paragraph if at all. As I said, if you'd like to discuss them, start another thread.
As a side note, a statement like this one can easily be construed as a "slam". I try to avoid ah hominem attacks, so I won't engage.
I will consolidate my questions.
1. Why is Bush using the Federal courts when it is clearly a states issue? The republican party is built on the idea of states rights. Why change now?
My _guess_ is because it would end up in Federal Court anyway and they are trying to get this settled. Suppose Bush challenged in Florida's Supreme Court and Gore lost. Where would Gore take it next? Federal Court, right? He's not going to give up and neither is Bush. I'm not in the inner circle though...so it's just a guess.
2. What do you propose to do with the 10,000 out of 30,000 votes that have been discarded but can still be considered valid votes by even your standards? Don't these people deserve a chance to be heard?
Neither you nor I can tell if any or all of those 10,000 ballots are valid. Some may not have been punched for President. I stumbled across a site that says about 6600 of the PBC ballots showed NO punches for President when run by the machines. Given the total slate of lightweights the Nation was offered, I'm not sure I'd blame them. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)Still, no one can determine the intentions of a voter that did not make a punch mark.
Further, they've been machine run 3 times. Ballot fatigue aside (and this is an issue that induces errors in the machine count and later hand counts) machines were/are considered less susceptible to ballot tampering than human count.
That's one of the two primary reasons that machine count was instituted in the first place. There are already affadavits that say "Roberts, one of the ballot handlers, has "been observed bending, twisting, poking, and purposely manipulating ballots in a manner that purposely compromised their integrity." (www.cnsnews.com)
You have already said you'd be concerned if all the Canvassing Officials were Republican. Why are you suprised Bush supporters are concerned when the Canvassers are all Democrats? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I also think assuming that people doing repetitive examinations on ballots for 10 hours a day for 5 days will make fewer errors than a machine may be optimistic as well. Face it, boredom sets in with people. Machines don't get bored.
3. Who was the last Democratic Presidential candidate you voted for?
Why do you want to know? What do you seek to prove? What difference does it make?
I started voting in the '72 election and haven't missed one since. I've voted Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Reform, not necessarily in any order. None of those votes seem to have changed the essential nature of American Politics. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Maybe I'll go Green next time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-16-2000).]
-
The complaint filed with the 11th cites the First and Fourteenth amendments...and also, I heard last night that on CNN that it is a Constitutional argument and not a state argument. Therefore, the Bush case is in Federal court. I don't pretend to be a lawyer BTW (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/siegelleprcmplt.pdf (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/siegelleprcmplt.pdf)
-
CC Toad,
I guess all there is to do now is sit and wait.
Good info Fury.
Thanks
F4UDOA