 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Read for yourself, "Galveston," and then chastise your fellow Republican, not me. I only shared the facts of that 2000 election after Steve brought the subject up. Personally I think if there's a way to screw up an election, it will happen in Florida regardless of Democrat or Republican. Ever since Jeb Bush they've become known for election screw-ups, period.
Hello Sky:
I guess half was enough.
excon
I would hate to have to rehash this again .But an independent panel of media did an extensive recount of ALL Fla ballots and found that Bush had even a greater margin of victory in 2000. It was Gore ;trying to change the rules via court challenges ,and the irresponsible actions of the Fla. Supreme Court,that created all the confusion.
Follow me again here Bobby, my examples had less to do with actual results - overall or otherwise - laws or rules than attitudes, behavior and stated principles. Although, fact is Hillary won the popular vote in Texas but received fewer delegates. How many Obama and winner-take-all supporters came out and complained?Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Your words were "Did Jeb and G.W. Bush warn 50 States that they was going to penalize the nation for wanting a re-count due to Florida's voting irregularities???"Quote:
Nope! It was Gore being supported by a majority of the Democratic public that was being opposed by Bush with Republicans support, on a re-count, concerning four counties, in Florida.:)
I said it was Gore that asked for a recount in in Volusia, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. The article you cite also says it was "Gore's petition to overturn the certification of Florida's election results and manually recount [all] the ballots." It was Gore that wanted to skirt Florida law which "required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election." It was Gore who "for the first time in modern history...[resorted] to lawsuits to try to overturn the outcome of an election for president." Bush asked the courts to follow Florida law nearly a month after Florida's statutory deadline, so do you support the law or not?
Hello:
As in most elections, the winner takes the post, while the losers demand a recount and complain about the rules. Certainly, you Republicans would agree, the guy who is anointed, irrespective of the votes or the rules or the complaints, IS the guy who is anointed...
Therefore, Obama IS the anointed, and he's going to trounce Grampy McSame.
excon
Steve, wake-up. You're sweating to death in example heat... again. The delegates are not award by whole state results, but by district. Therefore the votes counted for district populace are in effect accurate proportion. Neither Hillary or Obama were naïve to those rules, why are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The article was from CNN and was 100% accurate for that date. BTW you do realize that your wikipedia is rated only 90% of the time accurate. You're arguing with yourself here. Re-read the facts of what I stated after you brought the subject up. I said Gore with Democrat support vs Bush with Republican support... and that Gore wanted a re-count and Bush wanted to it stopped. There were irregularities. Chads hanging and missed counts are called irregularities. Period. My only implication is that Florida has tendency to screw-up any election. Gov. Crist was on media record just yesterday saying that he has it all fixed this time. We can only hope!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Bobby, I'm wide awake today and not naïve. You're missing the point. I said it had lees to do with actual results, rules and laws but with attitudes, behavior and stated principles. It is about what I've heard, read and watched the left say over the last 7 years being disregarded over partisan politics - exactly what they've whined about for all that time. It's the hypocrisy - not the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Yes the article was accurate, that's why I cited it also. I don't rely Wikipedia as a rock solid source, but the portion I cited is also accurate, supported by the CNN article you cited.Quote:
The article was from CNN and was 100% accurate for that date. BTW you do realize that your wikipedia is rated only 90% of the time accurate.
Hey buddy, I must have re-read it because I copied and pasted YOUR quote, lol.Quote:
You're arguing with yourself here. Re-read the facts of what I stated after you brought the subject up. I said Gore with Democrat support vs Bush with Republican support... and that Gore wanted a re-count and Bush wanted to it stopped. There were irregularities. Chads hanging and missed counts are called irregularities. Period.
Look, I hope so too. I hope it's fixed everywhere and I hope the parties don't intimidate voters, have lawyers on call in every precinct, and I wish the candidates and their minions would stop playing this game of personal destruction. But until they do, I'm going to fight back ;)Quote:
My only implication is that Florida has tendency to screw-up any election. Gov. Crist was on media record just yesterday saying that he has it all fixed this time. We can only hope!
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I went through three of your exampled arguments and each time there was an excuse. Actually the first time you detoured and said it was not one of your examples. Yet you've gone right back to the same argument and meanwhile admitted your only here to flame the fires. I really shouldn't waste my time on such adolescence. The guidelines of the DNC 2008 were already in place. Yeah I know you want to avoid rules and speak on reaction. But it took actions first and that was breaking rules. BTW since you keep bring up the general election Florida 2000 re-counts, it was so questionable that it took a spilt-vote majority in the Supreme court to sort out, unlike the Dem primary 2008. As for reaction on the recent DNC rulings, the few hanging on Hillaryettes were not being hypocritical, just whiners. Hillary, and the other hand is a hypocrite and I can give concrete examples. :cool:
Damn right what I was cited was accurate. Another fruitless argument vaporized. Yippee! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And I'll add the word, "comprehend," next time. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You mean the scorched earth campaigning of the Hillary Clinton?? Personally I think Gov Crist's word of confidence that he will have the State of Florida provide a smooth general election is even less ensuring in light of the fact of they've already showed disobedience moving the primary vote date up. Have they learned yet?? I'm going to keep fighting ignorance. ;)!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hey man, there is no excuse in any of my posts, I've been entirely consistent while you've detoured onto paths with no road signs leading there. Since you mentioned the word adolescent I'll just say it this way, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy now being revealed after the past 7 1/2 years of adolescent anti-Bush behavior. Now they're projecting their unhinged hatred of Bush onto McCain using the same adolescent tactics. The best they can come up with against McCain is he's old, a misquoted "100 year" remark, an unsubstantiated affair and painting him as a Bush clone based on a very select number of votes. You can't be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
This coming from the person that admits being here to flame the fires? Steve, everybody with a half of education knows I present my views very thoroughly and straight forward. The flies are already gathered around the dead horse so bring your little flickering match to the next to subject. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hey bub, I've already changed the subject. You're taking some things way too literally here. I said I'm just having a blast watching and stoking the fire - that the Democrats started on the subject of your primaries, I never said I was "only here to flame the fires." I've admitted numerous times I'm not a debater, but my research is thorough. So, moving on...Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Pacman had his first practice yesterday and looked good they said. Maybe he'll keep his nose clean and hit the field for the first game.
The citizens of Florida and Michigan should be furious... with their state leaders who played chicken with the DNC rules and then were appalled and aghast when it hit the fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyGem
If you set rules and a child disobeys it, and then throws a hissy fit because they are being punished... well, it means there's a system in place that is to be followed.
Granted, coming from the state of Iowa, the were-first-so-nah-nah state, I don't get the current system. Makes no sense. Iowa first. Whatever. Nice for the economy every 4 years, but other than that, it's a dumb system (who first and when) and needs revamped. That said... a system should be in place... is in place... and when rules are violated, its just using your backbone to apply punishment.
So I'm sick of hearing the whining about counting the Michigan and Florida voters. They deserved to be heard. They would have been heard... do you really thing those two states wouldn't have been big wins for either candidate even late in the game?
As it is, their leaders screwed up royally. The voters shouldn't be furious with the dnc and dean. It should be rage at in state leaders who played chicken and got egg on their face.
If our founding fathers could only see us now.
Hello r:Quote:
Originally Posted by rodandy12
If they did, they'd love it. Democracy is messy. It's not nice and neat. People get dinged. But, it's working exactly like it was designed to do. Frankly, I haven't enjoyed a campaign this much since 1968.
excon
Rodandy . I encourage you to read up on the politics of the 1792-1800 period. We are novices compared to how they played the game.
Yes indeed they would love it ;they would love the fact that the populace was engaged and fired up full of passion about the issues of the day.
R12-
I don't think having a black man nominated and running for president would had set well with them. Hundreds of years later, even today, having our first black nominee doesn't set well with some of the public.
Thomas Jefferson thought the American Revolution was the first in a series. He figured that once the freedom genie was out of the bottle, "the people" wouldn't put up with the sort of crap we seem willing to put up with and every 20-30 years, there would be another
Revolution. He greatly underestimated the coming success of the experiment called the United States and the citizen's willingness to bend their ideals if their lives were sufficiently comfortable.
I think our founding father's would be happy that the experiment has been a success, but pissed that we've turned into a bunch of spoiled fatcats who allow our elected leaders (sic) to get away with the crap they do.
Yes. Democracy is dam_ messy. It is not for sissys.
Pssst... I agree. I've wanted to take a bat to politicians kneecaps on several occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodandy12
I can remember from history, in Illinois state senate, during the days of Abe Lincoln, if there was to be a vote on something they did not want passed, some members would jump out of the meeting hall, even though the windows, so there would not be enough members present to call for a vote. Politics were always a fight, it was never set up for a majority vote of the people for almost anything, esp at the national level.
IE> as in the actual election, we do understand the EC elects the president, the popular vote does not. Just like the idea of the super delegates, it is all designed to protect the people being elected from the will of the people,
Rodandy
To the founders generation revolution included non-violent departures from the past. But I don't think that is what Jefferson meant because he used rhetoric about the tree of liberty being nourished in blood.
The founders understanding what Jefferson was saying, (who's views were in my opinion often contradictory and extreme compared to most of the founders), installed the mechanisim for "revolutionary change" into the framework of the Constitution. These include the amending process and a process for new Constitutional conventions.
From the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Jefferson wrote these words and the founders as I said added the means for change in the framework of the Constitution. The thing to remember about Jefferson is that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the excesses of the French Revolution .History showed that revolution to be a failure ;chaos reigned until a dictator restored order.
As for a new American Revolution;I would suggest that there have been elections in the country that were revolutionary (Jackson, Lincoln ,FDR) .
Those folks who "voted fair and square" knew beforehand that their votes were likely to be discounted. The states violated the rules. Whether the rule was justified is another matter. I guess I see, from a monetary standpoint, why so many seem to want the primaries over with in a hurry, but I'd like the primary season to hang around longer. Too quickly and lesser known candidates stay that way. I wanted Edwards, but the speed by which primaries flew by didn't give him enough chance to gain any momentum. I'm also sure there are other want to be candidates who never even got a chance. Extending the primary season, ultimately, gives us more options and may reduce the ever-growing problem of not really having a multi-party system - or even a real 2-party one...
Agree. The rush to pick a candidate quickly without proper vetting is a recipe for disaster. As it is ;no one really examined Obama until it was too late .Quote:
but I'd like the primary season to hang around longer. Too quickly and lesser known candidates stay that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You should had seen the expression on my face when Dubya was elected, not once, but twice. :eek: Some people are slow learners.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:49 PM. |