0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 12:10 pm
cicerone imposter

Quote:
If people can't read, they have no business voting. c.i.

Is that a new law? How about a poll tax should we re-institute that. Let me be the first to inform you that the despite all the rhetoric to the contrary that ballot was exceedingly confusing. I have that from people who voted in that county. I can assure you that they can read many being college graduates and professionals.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 12:37 pm
au, If people can't read, and they go to the polls to vote. They can't cry and demand that their votes be changed. That would only create chaos. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 01:05 pm
c.i.
Yes but they should be able to expect a ballot that is designed for easy use and understanding. They got just the opposite. However, that had nothing to do with the reason it was mentioned. It was to reflect on who won in Fla.
c.i.
since it is water under the bridge and nothing to do with the original subject no sense discussing it at this late date.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 01:11 pm
au1929 wrote:
The dredging up of the Florida vote at this time, who won and who lost, is an exercise in futility. However since you brought up I should remind you that even discounting the dirty tricks that Jeb Bush and his fellow conspirators played to keep many blacks from casting their votes. There were over 2000 votes that went to Buchanan which were meant for Gore because of the design of the infamous butterfly ballot. Did Bush win in Florida? I ask you.

First, I did not bring it up. I responded to the gentleman who did.

Second, despite detailed investigations, not ONE black person was found who was legally registered to vote in FL who was denied that right. NOT ONE. Numerous complaints of attempts to prevent them from voting were made, but no single person was shown to have been prevented from voting. Check your facts.

Third, you are asserting an assumption regarding the "butterfly ballot". Nobody knows who cast what votes, so neither you nor anyone else knows for whom any vote was intended.

Fourth, as I stated before, yes, Bush did in fact win FL, and the Presidency.

I understand that you are unhappy with that result, but that is no reason to ignore the facts that exist. If you wanted to know the truth you could look it up. No offense, but my guess is you won't, because many people seem to prefer their own opinion of reality to reality. I don't mean that as an insult, I just can't find a better way to describe the reluctance of so many to accept what is so easily verified and so patently true.
0 Replies
 
CowDoc
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 01:12 pm
As long as people in this forum insist on restating the fact that G. W. received less than half of the popular vote, I feel compelled to remind them that, in two presidential elections, Bill Clinton NEVER gained a popular majority. In fact, if my failing memory serves me correctly, his "high water mark" was 46% in 1996. I happen to consider this figure to be less than the mandate he apparently interpreted it to be, especially in regard to public land issues in the "War on the West" waged by Clinton and Babbitt.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 01:16 pm
CowDoc - It seems that some people have different standards for Republicans than they do for Democrats. And of course, what the popular vote was or was not means absolutely nothing in our system. It's as if we were having a contest to see who could build the tallest building, and the losing architect is now arguing that his design was the wider of the two. The statement may be factually accurate, but is not pertinent to the contest.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 01:55 pm
Tw
I though it was you who first mentioned the Florida vote. Aside from that, and knowing the futility of even discussing it at this late date. There is no doubt who the over 2000 votes that went to Buchanan were actually placed by voters who thought they were voting for Gore. Buchanan himself laughed about it and said those people would never vote for me. As for the obstacles thrown up to hinder the black vote there was plenty of antidotal evidence in that regard. In any event the irony is that the man sitting in the white house was put there by a butterfly.
Should note that I am well aware that the electoral vote not the popular vote totals elect the president.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 06:06 pm
au1929 wrote:
There is no doubt who the over 2000 votes that went to Buchanan were actually placed by voters who thought they were voting for Gore. Buchanan himself laughed about it and said those people would never vote for me. As for the obstacles thrown up to hinder the black vote there was plenty of antidotal evidence in that regard. In any event the irony is that the man sitting in the white house was put there by a butterfly.

The fact that you have no doubt about it, does not mean that no one has any doubt about it.

Quote:
A wider view shows Palm Beach ranks No. 2 among Florida counties in registered Independents and Reform Party members, and tends to vote way out of step with other counties -- and not just when it comes to Reform Party candidates.

Socialist Party and Constitution Party candidates for president had their best showings in Palm Beach this election, yet no one has suggested those results are anomalous.

Other counties where Buchanan got large chunks of votes, such as Pinellas County, share Palm Beach's demographics, casting further doubt on the theory that thousands of Buchanan votes were intended for Gore.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20789

It is of course possible that some or most of the Buchanan votes were meant for Gore, but even if that is true--and we will never know--the fact remains that the votes were cast AS CAST; you can't unring a bell. If I intended to vote for X and accidentally cast my vote for Y, my vote is counted for Y and there is nothing you or I can or should do about it.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 06:20 pm
TW
You are correct you can't unring the bell and I never suggested you can or even should. However,I will stick to my belief that Bush has the presidency by virtue of a butterfly and a panel of black robed vultures.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 11:57 pm
Before I use the search engines to find links that verify blacks were disenfranchised in Florida, I stopped because I realized this was the same kind of ridiculous argument as when some white person stands and proclaims "Show me PROOF there is racism today! See, no concrete PROOF!", ...then I realized that there has also been no link substantiatintg "There was NOT ONE black person kept from voting."

So, being that my enthusiasm for the debate is limited by my prior fruitless similar engagements of this type, I'll be satisfied to let the person holding forth about how "no black person was kept from voting" produce some substantiation of THAT, before I answer with evidence that oh hell yes there were.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 12:14 am
snood, Maybe this is what you're looking for.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/120600-103.htm

c.i.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 01:01 am
snood wrote:
Before I use the search engines to find links that verify blacks were disenfranchised in Florida, I stopped because I realized this was the same kind of ridiculous argument as when some white person stands and proclaims "Show me PROOF there is racism today!

No, it is a very different thing. Official hearings were held, people were interviewed, stones were overturned, and all of it is a matter of public record. That record shows that not one single black person in FL was found who even claimed on the record that he or she was able to vote legally on that day and was barred from doing so. Not one.

Now let's assume that they missed someone. Let's assume that some people chose not to come forward. Today we have people regurgitating the myth that THOUSANDS were systematically denied the right to vote, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that any such thing occurred. If it had, surely it would be an easy thing to show. Surely those who were denied their right to vote would have come forward in droves. The record would be replete with their stories.

Even the Berry (Barry?) report, as partisan as it was, merely claims that they believe efforts were made to disenfranchise black voters, without actually claiming that any black voters were kept from the polls.

This is not analogous to asking someone to prove racism exists. Racist acts occur daily that are not part of any permanent record. In this case a record exists for you or anyone to consult. Please do so at your convenience.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 01:39 am
Hey man, saying "all of this is public record" in discussions about such heatedly contested "facts" carries about as much weight as a satisfaction guaranteed on a cryogenic chamber.

Produce links proving there weren't any blacks disenfranchised, or admit you're just expressing an opinion just like anyone else, and not some kind of "undisputable record", or something.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 02:22 am
No one was brought to trial, criminal or civil, for any "Black Disenfranchisement" issue arrising from the '02 Florida elections, to my knowledge or recollection, and while allegations abound, apparently no charges or lawsuits were filed, and no verdicts or judgements were delivered. I just did a bit of search-engine crawling and found lots of allegations, denials, annecdotes and diatribes, but no record of any legal action having been brought. The way I see This Country, if something which upsets somebody didn't result in an arrest or a lawsuit, it probably didn't happen! Laughing



timber
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 08:07 am
Settlement Reached In Florida Election Lawsuit
NAACP And Other Civil Rights Groups Filed Lawsuit After Disputed 2000 Election



The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other civil rights groups today announced the settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed against the state of Florida and seven counties after many African American and other voters were disenfranchised during the presidential election on Nov. 7, 2000.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 08:27 am
Cool, dys ... Maybe I misunderstood ... I wasn't looking at 2000 ... I just checked for '02. And I don't doubt I could have overlooked something there, too ... it was about 2 AM when I gave it the half-hearted shot I gave it.




timber
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 11:57 am
timber, This forum is called "Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004." Why you thought this was about 2002 is kind of hard to believe. c.i.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 03:11 pm
Replacing George Bush has difficulties. He is a carefully constructed figure whose every movement is choreographed and whose every word is rehearsed. And his watchers and minders resemble the old mafia dons - cross them and you will be eliminated.

Several other things are at work here, though. Although the importance of world opinion and participation is pooh-poohed, they are very much needed. Without them we face daunting economic woes (added to what we already have, and whose hiding is beginning to be not so perfect). There is the problem of after-Iraq. Beginning to look as though we will have to go in there and occupy for a period of years, mostly be ourselves. In the beginning, it didn't look this way. In the beginning, it looked like popular George would be able to swing this with the help of many. That's turning to dust.

So now George has to campaign on the hopeful promise of a quick turn-around economically, particularly regarding the job scene, on the promise of a just war that will be quickly and easily fought at no cost, and on the regaining of international respect, the loss of which has begun to bother more people.

Can he be replaced? Sure - depending, as always, on how the democrats play this out.

I expect this will be a dirty fight. But there are things the democrats can bring up, and should, There's been a free ride for far too long.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 04:58 pm
mamajuana wrote:
Replacing George Bush has difficulties. He is a carefully constructed figure whose every movement is choreographed and whose every word is rehearsed. And his watchers and minders resemble the old mafia dons - cross them and you will be eliminated.

Empty, unsupportable rhetoric.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jan, 2003 06:23 pm
Sorry for the confusion, there, c.i., I was addressing a request for clarification of an earlier post of Dyslexia's on this thread ... I didn't "Lose" 4 years, really! Laughing



timber
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 10:54:17