Is Democracy lost amonst Americans?

[Psychoblues]

As demostrated in 2000, most voting Americans preferred Al Gore. Considering the bulk of non-voters in this country and their propensities towards Democratic candidates is it any wonder that I might ask the question?

Could I possibly stir your attention when I ask, "Where Have All The Democrats Gone?" It is certain that the votes of potential Democrats were tampered with in Florida, Tennessee and even in California in 2000. In spite of all that, Al Gore still won the popular vote. Another thing to consider is that it was highly publicized then that GWB was considering just the opposite, that he would garner the majority popular vote but fail in the electoral system and that he was poised to file suit in an attempt to rectify his supposed view of "unfairness".

I fully understand that I'm dragging up an old fight, but it is still one that I view with amazement. I am still convinced that America is overwhelmingly Democratic and I am still bewildered as to how it's votes and policies would indicate otherwise. Please correct me in my shallowness and misunderstanding, will you?

 

[wonderwench]

The FL votes were analyzed by several independent groups. All concluded that the vote count as recorded for the election was accurate.

You are sadly mistaken in assuming that the non-voters would reflect a Democratic majority. And in reality, it just doesn't matter. If people do not care to vote, that is their right. We cannot factor in how they would have (or in the case of the Florida recounts, should have) voted.

We have an Electoral College for a reason - to keep a few states with heavy population density from controlling the agenda of the country. The concept it addresses is referred to as the Tyrrany of the Majority. The electoral college balances population with geographic differences by combining total Senators and total Representatives. Just because your candidate didn't win in 2000 is no reason to throw it away.

 

[Americangirl]

Democrats are loud, but conservatives are the silent majority. Why? Well, when Democrats speak, its "freedom of speech". When conservatives speak, its "hate speech". That's why a lot of conservatives keep quiet, but they make themselves heard at the polls!

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Al Gore still won the popular vote.

1.) So what?

2.) And anyways, it was a statistical tie. The difference in the two popular vote totals was well within the +/-3% margin of error.

I am still convinced that America is overwhelmingly Democratic

It's not.

is certain that the votes of potential Democrats were tampered with in

There are reported voting irregularities, with respect to both parties, in every state in every election, including reports of people invalidating or throwing out Bush votes during the Florida recount. Why didn't you mention the Democrats who were buying cigarette cartons for bums to go vote, and were caught on tape?

Why am I even bothering to respond? Nevermind.

 

[Psychoblues]

You responded because you care, Zhukof. As I do when I recognise injustice and things contrary to the principles outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I've been a ferocious fighter for many years. My fighting is now relegated to a few Homeowners association arguments, local committee meetings and here, the internet, particularly the USMB. I'm not ashamed of my past and I'm sure not ashamed of my present. But you can bet your hiney that I'll be voting in November and that I'll be watching as closely as I can for irregularities from either side of the political spectrum.

 

[jon_forward]

yes, old news psycho... how about we concentrate on this election and the real issues. I am still waiting to hear ANY issues from the Democrats save for Bush-bashing. I have heard it said several times on news shows that the democrats are not looking to nominate the best person to run OUR country but one that they feel can have a chance of beating G.W.... I find this laughable and childish...

 

[Psychoblues]

Juvenile is as juvenile does. Considering the lengths and lies that were accomplished in 2000 by the Republicans it's a no-holds-barred race at this point. Even then, the Dems will honorably accept the election of 2004. This is much more than the plans of the Republicans in 2000 and this is not unnoticed by most of us.

 

[wonderwench]

 

[jon_forward]

conspiracy theories aside....08 will be the Democrats best chance at the CIC seat. but you do have to agree that the democrats are acting like a bunch of kids on the playground fighting over a ball......
"Its mine give it back" seems this way to me:cof:

 

[Moi]

Where Have All The Democrats Gone?


They are in line cashing or spending their IRS refund, dividend and employment checks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Psychoblues]

You need to check your figures again, Moi. Most Dems I know of never received any IRS refund, the dividends were eaten up with share deterioration and downright fraud and their unemployment benefits have long since run out or they have found other work while trying to compete with foriegn illegals for less than minimum wages. It's late and you're drunk, right? Your statement might be funny to some, but not to me.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
You need to check your figures again, Moi. Most Dems I know of never received any IRS refund, the dividends were eaten up with share deterioration and downright fraud and their unemployment benefits have long since run out or they have found other work while trying to compete with foriegn illegals for less than minimum wages. It's late and you're drunk, right? Your statement might be funny to some, but not to me.

I'm not drunk but the 60's must have been good to you if you really believe that this country is overwhelmingly democrat supporters. Those drugs must still be circulating in your system.

You must know some pretty wealthy democrats. Everyone benefitted from the tax rebates except those of extremely high incomes. Even people who didn't pay one red cent in taxes got a rebate!

As for the post itself, a bit of humor injected into what was essentially a nonsensical diatribe of baseless "facts".

 

[Psychoblues]

I repeat, you need to check your figures but now I must insist that you check your facts. Those, at least in the payroll tax and poverty levels, that paid no federal income tax in 2000 also received no rebate in 2001 and those that did had to repay in 2002. No question about it, you may not be drunk but your interpretations of the Bush tax cuts is certainly messed up. But go on with your propaganda!!!!! Fascism at it's very best!!!!!!!!

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
I repeat, you need to check your figures but now I must insist that you check your facts. Those, at least in the payroll tax and poverty levels, that paid no federal income tax in 2000 also received no rebate in 2001 and those that did had to repay in 2002. No question about it, you may not be drunk but your interpretations of the Bush tax cuts is certainly messed up. But go on with your propaganda!!!!! Fascism at it's very best!!!!!!!!

Actually, I believe it you who must revisit your facts. More recent information includes these tidbits from 3/7/02:

- The Internal Revenue Service says the average refund through last Friday totaled $2,091, up 12% from the comparable period in 2001.
- The refunds already have pumped a well-timed $74 billion into a struggling U.S. economy
- nearly double the sum mailed as a special rebate last year to millions of taxpayers.

• Increased child credit. The 2001 law boosts to $600 from $500 the per-child credit. It also makes more families eligible to use the tax-refund process to claim the money even when the credit exceeds their tax liability (which, for those out there who don't know, means that they get a refund even if they didn't pay the taxes in the first place!!!).

• Lower rates. The new law shaved a half-point off the former rates of 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. Midyear changes in wage-withholding tables didn't fully offset the effect of the rate changes.
• Rate reduction credit. Starting next tax season, IRS tax tables will build in a 10% rate for the first $12,000 of income for married filers and the first $6,000 for singles. The income had been taxed at 15%.

http://usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2002/03-07-refunds.htm

 

[Psychoblues]

I'm not going to quibble with you, Moi, over stats and figures that are compiled by parties that make a practise of agenda driven ideology. I am going to state that I have felt no relief whatsoever, as a middle income American, and that I know of no other thinking middle incomer that can disagree. To imply, as you certainly did and plainly stated, that poverty types below the income tax threshold received some type of rebate or refund is just a damn lie. Much like the Bush campaign of 2000, his supporters just repeat his lies. But it's all politics, ain't it? I think the TRUTH will prevail.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
I'm not going to quibble with you, Moi, over stats and figures that are compiled by parties that make a practise of agenda driven ideology.

What party does the USA TODAY belong to?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
I'm not going to quibble with you, Moi, over stats and figures that are compiled by parties that make a practise of agenda driven ideology. I am going to state that I have felt no relief whatsoever, as a middle income American, and that I know of no other thinking middle incomer that can disagree. To imply, as you certainly did and plainly stated, that poverty types below the income tax threshold received some type of rebate or refund is just a damn lie. Much like the Bush campaign of 2000, his supporters just repeat his lies. But it's all politics, ain't it? I think the TRUTH will prevail.

If you think the IRS, the actual organization charged with diseminating information on taxes (and the source of the above-referenced information), is a party that "make a practise of agenda driven ideology" then all I can say is WHATEVER.

It is clear, in black and white, that those in the low income levels received monies they never paid. No question about it.

If you think that "middle" income people haven't received any tax relief, how can you possibly explain a reduction of ACROSS THE BOARD tax rates? Or the refunds that have been given?

Oh, wait, nevermind. You are only spouting opinion. You haven't proffered one single iota of evidence to back up your claims of lies and propaganda. And the fact that you know of no middle american who felt relief...to what do we owe this striking piece of information? Your random poll around the water cooler?

Again, whatever!

 

[wonderwench]

C'mon Moi, haven't you realized by now that people who advocate soaking The Rich with more taxes are never bothered with facts?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
C'mon Moi, haven't you realized by now that people who advocate soaking The Rich with more taxes are never bothered with facts?

Can't help myself. Particularly feisty tonight and these several posts have brought my colour out! Just about had it with all the finger pointing and anti-bush crap...especially because most of the ones spouting it can't just admit that it's their opinion and not based in fact.

Opinion and personal dislikes such as what's your favorite colour I can handle...saying these facts are lies and propaganda without a shred of evidence thereto just burns me up.

 

[wonderwench]

Me too. But I've tried to develop a Zen attitude about it.

I just point out the sophistry of their arguments so that others don't fall for it - they themselves won't be open to anything that contradicts their dogma.