Progress

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Avatar4321, Mar 31, 2004.

  1. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    I am starting to think that the President has been making more progress with Americans and combatting the left that i originally though. Today I actually saw a lib who admitted that Bush was elected. I was completely shocked. After four years some of them are starting to admit it! Its about time.

    Of course he then went on to blame Americans for how stupid we were for electing him. So that hasnt changed much but progress is being made!
     
  2. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    a bit behind the times avatar, I admitted this shortly after they ussc made their decision. ;)
     
  3. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    Many have not though. You still see posts with terms such as Selected President.
     
  4. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    B]a bit behind the times avatar, I admitted this shortly after they ussc made their decision[/B]

    DK, if you believe that a rational attitude on this point is shared by most liberals, then I suggest a visit to the MSN Slate site - election 2004.

    A few minutes there will be a real eye opener. Almost without exception, the libs there are still ranting that the election was stolen. Of course they don't have time to get around to that all too often because they are busy calling the President a liar, crook, coward, moron, butcher, murderer, Hitler, ........ I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.

    Fact is that many Democrats still feel that the election was stolen. Never mind the three recounts. Never mind the shenanigans with the absentee ballots. And never mind the fact that Gore's last desperate gambit was an attempt to cherry-pick the counties to be re-counted (again).
     
  5. LoneVoice
    Online

    LoneVoice Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It's amazing how short-sidedly partisan the parties can be. It was not long ago that Rush and Republican pundits were disclaiming the legitimacy of the elections that Clinton won, because he didn't gather a MAJORITY of the votes. This was said and repeated numerous times because he had very slightly less than 50%.

    In contrast, George Bush didn't even gather a plurality of the votes. In many senses he legitimately loss the 2000 elections, deemed "too close to call".


    Look at the facts as a whole (Florida votes).
    Incredibly close election in 2000 - indisputable.
    Nader supporters taking away an sizeable group of voters that otherwise predominantly would've voted for Gore - but that's always a legitimate issue when any third party runs.
    Voting ballad in error - was mentioned that the typical standard is that the party currently in the Presidency gets top spot on the ballad.
    Voting ballad confusion - design of the ballad clearly resulted in a large constituent of voters, supporting 1 candidate and voting for a different candidate.
    Voting corruption - Allegations that groups of voters were turned away at the election booths (i.e. some areas closed down early, or some groups of constituents turned away).
    Discarding votes - Clearly numerous votes from certain voting areas were not counted (i.e. hanging chads)


    The ultimate point of any free and honorable election system is for the election results to reflect the viewpoint of the voting public. This should be done as accurately as possible. No matter who wins. This was obviously flawed in the case of the Florida election. More improvements need to be done in the U.S. to ensure that future election results accurately reflect the viewpoint of the voters.
     
  6. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    -So to fix it we replace the systems with computerized equipment without proper bug fixes, training, and without proper security.

    At least, that is what California did.
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Isn't a "ballad" a poem or sentimental song?

    :rotflmao:
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Yes, let's do that!

    1- "The election in Florida was too close to call."

    Truth - George Bush received more votes than Al Gore and never trailed by a single vote, even after a variety of recounts. Democrats want you to think that the outcome of the election was ambiguous - and it wasn't. Florida counted the votes as it normally would and Bush won. Counties then recounted the votes using their normal tabulation methods and Bush was verified as the winner.

    Gore wanted to change tabulation methods in Democrat counties and have yet another recount in order to find more votes and overcome George Bush's victory.

    2- "Florida had discarded votes"

    Truth - Democrats intentionally combined these terms in order to confuse you. Discarded ballots occur in every election, in every city, in every state, due to voter error or confusion. Democrats began calling them "discarded votes" in order to suggest that citizens had their votes thrown out. Yet not only were votes counted twice in Florida, there were additional recounts in Democrat counties (all in an effort to find more votes for Gore.)

    3- "George Bush was selected - not elected!"

    Truth - After Al Gore lost the election, he tried to manipulate the tabulation process in Democrat counties in order to find more votes. His efforts lead to 35 days of legal wrangling that ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court of United States. The court admonished and overturned the Florida Supreme Court for taking a managerial role in the election and altering Florida's election laws in order to find more votes for Gore.

    This phrase is designed to convince you that Bush's "buddies" saw to it that he was elected, even though Bush had more votes and it was Gore who was disrupting the election process. It also implies that if Gore would have been able to take over the election as he wanted, he surely would have found enough new votes to win, something that is not certain by any means.

    4- "Most investigations show Al Gore won Florida!"

    Truth - There is not a single investigation that concludes Al Gore received more votes than President Bush in Florida. In fact, the ultimate investigation, that being the tabulations by Florida's counties, proved otherwise. After counting the votes a variety of times using normal tabulation processes, George Bush had more.

    Democrats anxiously awaited a study conducted by the University of Chicago that reviewed all ambiguous ballots in Florida, not just the one's in Democrat counties. The study categorizes the number of dimples, hanging chads, types of voting machines, etc. The study does not determine "winners" or "losers". But Democrats want you to believe that all overvotes and undervotes were supposed to be Gore votes (dimples, hanging chads, pregnant chads).

    5- "More people intended to vote for Gore than did for Bush!"

    Truth - Democrats began pounding this message as soon as they found out they lost, before ballots were even reviewed once by the human eye. Democrats somehow know in their hearts that more people voted for Gore than for Bush, even though Bush received more votes.

    Oddly, they simultaneously claimed the election was "too close to call". That is, on one moment they said the election was so close a winner has not yet been determined. Yet in the next breath they claim they know more people intended to vote for Gore.

    Again, Democrats want you to believe that if the disqualified ballots were somehow counted it would reveal a Gore victory. That is, all dimples, pregnant chads, etc., were supposed to be votes for Gore but it was just too difficult for voters to indicate so.

    6- "All we seek is a fair count of the votes!"

    Truth - Al Gore wanted to find more votes. As such, he selected the top Democrat counties to conduct manual recounts. He ignored the rest of the state, which included many counties that had much higher percentage of disqualified ballots than any of the counties he selected.

    (This brings up yet another point of confusion. Gore wants you to think he requested a State wide recount, but he didn't. If he really wanted a statewide recount he could have made requests to all counties, just has did for the Democrat counties.)

    Further, Democrats never proved there was anything wrong with the original tabulations other than that Gore lost. They were never concerned about a "fair" count. Rather, they wanted manual recounts in Democrat counties in order to employ subjective interpretation on ambiguous ballots. Eventually, Gore and the liberal Florida Supreme Court focused only on undervotes, leaving overvotes out all together (100,000 ballots!)

    7- "Florida voters were disenfranchised!"

    Truth - In order to convince you that voters were disenfranchised, Democrats began saying that they were concerned about election "anomalies". Yet, not a single anomaly has risen from the chaos to disqualify the election. Even more ridiculous, Gore suggested that he wanted to fix so called anomalies by having manual recounts in Democrat counties. Democrats sent an army of lawyers and operatives who could exploit normal election happenstances through litigation and hysteria.

    8- "Some ballots were never counted in Florida, not even once!"

    Truth - This was said by famous liberal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, just days after the election. Dershowitz appeared on national television in order to begin priming America for manual recounts in Democrat counties. He deceived citizens by saying some votes "haven't been counted even once".

    This is an example of Democrats deliberately combining the terms "ballots" and "votes". Dershowitz wanted you to think they are same and that somehow citizens had their votes thrown out, a frightening scenario that suggested fraud. But Dershowitz failed to mention that disqualified ballots do not properly indicate a choice for a candidate. Likewise, they occurred in every county throughout Florida, not just the counties where Gore thought he could pickup additional votes.

    9- "Bush refused a statewide recount"

    Truth - After losing the election, Gore appeared on national television and said that he would welcome a full statewide recount as long as "Bush would go along with it." This disguised his quest for manual recounts in Democrat counties. He also made it appear as if any candidate was entitled to a recount anywhere and anytime they wanted. (This is also an example of how Gore barnstormed into Florida and took over the post-election, where locals were fully capable of managing on their own.)

    Further, given the chaos that Democrats had created in Florida, Gore's suggestion seemed to be "fair" and "logical" to many Americans at the time. Meanwhile, he was positioning to overturn the election that George Bush had won.

    http://www.florida2000election.com/deception.htm
     
  9. LoneVoice
    Online

    LoneVoice Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Jimnyc,

    You clearly missed the point.

    1. The point was that Rush and Republicans tried to disclaim the legitimacy of the elections that Clinton won because he didn't get a MAJORITY of the votes. Those results were a clearcut victory for Clinton. So, it's inconsistent for Republican pundits to rebel against comments regarding Bush's legitimacy.

    2. The Bush v Gore election was technically too close to call. There are sites on the web that will support Bush having won, and there are many sites on the web that support Gore having won. It would be very easy to rehash that debate over who really won.

    3. The ultimate point of any free and honorable election system is for the election results to reflect the viewpoint of the voting public. This should be done as accurately as possible. No matter who wins. This was obviously flawed in the case of the Florida election. More improvements need to be done in the U.S. to ensure that future election results accurately reflect the viewpoint of the voters.
     
  10. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    And the results of this action by Gore slowed up the administration change, Bush wasnt able to get alot of his administration in place till atleast august. Especially after the shift in the Senate with Jumpping Jimmy slowed up the process even more.

    And despite all this Clarke is trying to blame the Bush administration for not taking action to prevent 911. Kinda hard to do when your administration isnt all in place isnt it?
     

Share This Page