Why Perry Can't Win

[The Rabbi]

There was no gross injustice anywhere but in your mind.
Bush won Florida. Every study shows that. It is not unprecedented for the winner not to get the majority of popular votes. That's how the system works. Don't like it? Move elsewhere.

Horsecrap. There have been a bunch of studies that have proven that Gore really got more votes in Florida.

The Consortium

Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

But wait, there's more...

The Consortium

It turned out that 1,871 of these disqualified ballots were clearly marked for Gore and 1,189 were clearly marked for George W. Bush, giving Gore that net gain of 682 votes.

For those who remember Bush's official victory margin of 537 votes, the math would seem simple. Subtract 537 from 682, giving Gore a narrow win by 145 votes.

Sorry, there have been extensive studies that would have shown that Gore would have won Florida, had an accurate and fair count been done. The Supreme Court prevented that.

Sorry, only in the biased mind of the left.
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

 

[The Rabbi]

[
You are the one that is hopelessly stupid, and I laugh at your ignorance.
You have no idea why the electoral college was put in place, so you lash out. Totally, hopelessly, ignorant. tsk, tsk

Guy, you haven't given a good reason yet why someone should be appointed by a court after losing the popular vote.

Because people who said blacks were 3/5th of a white man said so? Really? That's your whole reasoning here?

Any reason that might have been valid in 1787 really has no relevence in 2000. By all rights, Bush should have said, "The people have spoken" and that should have been the end of the matter. Instead, we had a situation that was worthy of a Chicago Ward backroom or a third world banana republic where the candidates brother tampered with the vote and a court ruled in his favor.

Um, no one was appointed by the court.
The Court ruled what the law was. The secretary of state took the existing results, which have since been validated, and declared Bush the winner. The Electoral College met and elected Bush, which is how presidents get elected in this country.
THat is the end of the matter. Sorry it didnt work out for you. Sucks to be on the losing side of history.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude....you are making assumptions....when you do that YOU fail.

Let me splain it in as simple terms to where you may even be able to understand it....(I'm only guessing at that)

A candidate would only have to get the votes in the 5 most populated states and be able to win the presidency with the popular vote. I know that would be just fine with you, but that's not the way it works. The candidates would concentrate on those 5 states needs and not the needs of the other 45 states plus DC. The needs of Montana are certainly different than the needs of Pa.
With the electoral college all the states plus Washington DC are assured of being represented in the general election. Not so with the popular vote.

I know this isn't even going to register with you, but I really could give a rats ass.
The electoral college is every bit as important today at it was 200+ years ago.

Since the five most populated states have the most people in them, if they could all agree on who to pick for president, that is who we should have as president.

The situation you describe, where Montana can sit their and pout and decide the election is just sillier than shit. It's why IL pours money into Montana and Alaska and these states shaped like rectangles.

My one vote should be just as important in IL as it is in Montana. (Although neither state has been in play since 1988.)

But it gets worse. The only reason we don't have more insanity is because we've settled into this awful two party system. The Dead Slaveholders never anticipated political parties.

When racist Strom Thurmond ran in 1948 against Harry Truman, his entire goal was to kick the election into Congress. (The backup plan of the 12th Amendment.) He just hated Truman that much for wanting to grant his secret black daughter real rights. George Wallace planned similiar malicious mischief in 1968. (But, hey, we got Nixon, and that worked out well.) Heck, getting back to 2000, if Ralph Nader hadn't run, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Al Gore would have easily won Florida and probably a few other states.

So really, your system allows crazy third parties to cause mischeif, but never gives us a real alternative to the corrupt two party system. (Current approval ratings for the Democrats and Republicans- 30 and 25% respectively!)

Now, this usually doesn't come up. Most cases, you have two candidates, and one of them wins by a large enough margin to make the EC a formality no one even notices. But it's kind of like a defective part of a plane. Do you really want to be on it the one time it does fail?

 

[Meister]

There was no gross injustice anywhere but in your mind.
Bush won Florida. Every study shows that. It is not unprecedented for the winner not to get the majority of popular votes. That's how the system works. Don't like it? Move elsewhere.

Horsecrap. There have been a bunch of studies that have proven that Gore really got more votes in Florida.

The Consortium



But wait, there's more...

The Consortium

It turned out that 1,871 of these disqualified ballots were clearly marked for Gore and 1,189 were clearly marked for George W. Bush, giving Gore that net gain of 682 votes.

For those who remember Bush's official victory margin of 537 votes, the math would seem simple. Subtract 537 from 682, giving Gore a narrow win by 145 votes.

Sorry, there have been extensive studies that would have shown that Gore would have won Florida, had an accurate and fair count been done. The Supreme Court prevented that.

Sorry, only in the biased mind of the left.
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

So the overvotes, where 2 candidates were chosen and one happened to be Gore, then the libs wanted that to mean "they meant Gore"? I can see where joe would want that vote counted that way.

 

[JoeB131]

Um, no one was appointed by the court.
The Court ruled what the law was. The secretary of state took the existing results, which have since been validated, and declared Bush the winner. The Electoral College met and elected Bush, which is how presidents get elected in this country.
THat is the end of the matter. Sorry it didnt work out for you. Sucks to be on the losing side of history.

If it was a CLEAR MATTER OF LAW, then it would have been 9-0, not 5-4.

Come on, guy, Roe v. Wade was 7-2, but you far right types aren't accepting that there is an unfettered right to abortion on demand.

And we were ALL on the losing side of history with Dubya. The losing side are those who lost the value of their homes, their jobs, and their savings because of his inept crony capitalism.

Were there any real winners out of the Bush years? Really?

Heck, the best argument they make against your boy Perry (whom I am still supporting at this point) is that he sounds like Bush. I mean, you have to have fucked up pretty bad if anyone who sounds like you or comes from the same state is to be feared.

(Then again, nobody names their kid "Adolf" or wears those funny mustaches after 1945.... hmmmmm)

 

[Meister]

Dude....you are making assumptions....when you do that YOU fail.

Let me splain it in as simple terms to where you may even be able to understand it....(I'm only guessing at that)

A candidate would only have to get the votes in the 5 most populated states and be able to win the presidency with the popular vote. I know that would be just fine with you, but that's not the way it works. The candidates would concentrate on those 5 states needs and not the needs of the other 45 states plus DC. The needs of Montana are certainly different than the needs of Pa.
With the electoral college all the states plus Washington DC are assured of being represented in the general election. Not so with the popular vote.

I know this isn't even going to register with you, but I really could give a rats ass.
The electoral college is every bit as important today at it was 200+ years ago.

Since the five most populated states have the most people in them, if they could all agree on who to pick for president, that is who we should have as president.

The situation you describe, where Montana can sit their and pout and decide the election is just sillier than shit. It's why IL pours money into Montana and Alaska and these states shaped like rectangles.

My one vote should be just as important in IL as it is in Montana. (Although neither state has been in play since 1988.)

But it gets worse. The only reason we don't have more insanity is because we've settled into this awful two party system. The Dead Slaveholders never anticipated political parties.

When racist Strom Thurmond ran in 1948 against Harry Truman, his entire goal was to kick the election into Congress. (The backup plan of the 12th Amendment.) He just hated Truman that much for wanting to grant his secret black daughter real rights. George Wallace planned similiar malicious mischief in 1968. (But, hey, we got Nixon, and that worked out well.) Heck, getting back to 2000, if Ralph Nader hadn't run, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Al Gore would have easily won Florida and probably a few other states.

So really, your system allows crazy third parties to cause mischeif, but never gives us a real alternative to the corrupt two party system. (Current approval ratings for the Democrats and Republicans- 30 and 25% respectively!)

Now, this usually doesn't come up. Most cases, you have two candidates, and one of them wins by a large enough margin to make the EC a formality no one even notices. But it's kind of like a defective part of a plane. Do you really want to be on it the one time it does fail?

Joe, your a buffoon, your always going to be a buffoon and I'm done with you being my play toy for the evening.
Bottom line is the system worked with the laws we have in the United States. You lost and your the pouty little boy who can't or won't listen to reason. Deal with it son.

Perrot is the Nader that got Clinton elected. But I don't play the "what If's" like you do.

 

[JoeB131]

So the overvotes, where 2 candidates were chosen and one happened to be Gore, then the libs wanted that to mean "they meant Gore"? I can see where joe would want that vote counted that way.

So if Anthony Kennedy had decided to flip his Harvey Dent coin that day and voted with the other four justices and allowed recounts authorized by the florida court, would you have been so understanding? Somehow, I doubt it.

But since Jeb and Cruella Harris stopped any accurate counts from being done, we'll never know... except that we all know something fishy went on.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If the Bush Clan didn't want a full count, there was probably a reason.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, your a buffoon, your always going to be a buffoon and I'm done with you being my play toy for the evening.
Bottom line is the system worked with the laws we have in the United States. You lost and your the pouty little boy who can't or won't listen to reason. Deal with it son.

Perrot is the Nader that got Clinton elected. But I don't play the "what If's" like you do.

Guy, besides the fact you are barely literate (Think Perot is spelled "Perrot", can't tell the difference between your and you're) you shrank like a coward from my additional point.

A system where a mutant like Nader can get 2% of the vote and throw the entire system into chaos is not a good system.

the system didn't work. It functioned, perhaps, but didn't "work". the people expressed their will, and their intent was ignored because one side was willing to cheat more than the other.

Let us not forget, Bill Clinton was still president, and he had a whole array of things he could have done to reverse the outcome. He chose not to. (Probably because Gore had stuck him in the back so many times he didn't feel like it.)

For instance, he could have filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of all those people Jeb had illegally purged from teh voter rolls, requiring a new election be held. He could have insisted that Democrats not certify the results until a full recount was done.

A system that brings you to the brink of constitutional crisis in a close election is not a system that works.

 

[Vargulf]

As a centrist/independent, I don't care for extremes on either side. As for Perry, he's too religious for my tastes. In the last election when Huckabee ran, he announced that he wanted to change the Constitution to more closely reflect the bible. I tossed him out as a choice immediately. Past history and even present day clearly shows the evil of overt influence by religions on govermnents. The last good republican we had was a Progressive Republican named Theodore Roosevelt. Conservative (conservative in this sense, meaning greed) Republicans, unfortunately side with the uber-rich, who would like to get rid of unions, have no real benefits for the workers, eliminate social security and medicare and pay poor wages, much like the workers in the third-world. Just use the employee up until he/she can no longer work, toss the old worker out and replace him/her with a younger one, then complain if they see the poor starving ex-employee sitting outside the property with a tin cup, begging for handouts.

 

[Unkotare]

Since the five most populated states have the most people in them, if they could all agree on who to pick for president, that is who we should have as president.

You are a stone-cold idiot. Our Great Experiment would have ended in 1787 if we had more people like you and fewer people like Hamilton.

 

[JoeB131]

As a centrist/independent, I don't care for extremes on either side. As for Perry, he's too religious for my tastes. In the last election when Huckabee ran, he announced that he wanted to change the Constitution to more closely reflect the bible. I tossed him out as a choice immediately. Past history and even present day clearly shows the evil of overt influence by religions on govermnents. The last good republican we had was a Progressive Republican named Theodore Roosevelt. Conservative (conservative in this sense, meaning greed) Republicans, unfortunately side with the uber-rich, who would like to get rid of unions, have no real benefits for the workers, eliminate social security and medicare and pay poor wages, much like the workers in the third-world. Just use the employee up until he/she can no longer work, toss the old worker out and replace him/her with a younger one, then complain if they see the poor starving ex-employee sitting outside the property with a tin cup, begging for handouts.

Well, since I've been picking on the Wingnuts, I might as well swat a moonbat, just to make it fair.

Guy, so your solution is that we all depend on a nanny state for our well being?

Last job I had, I got totally screwed by my boss. Essentially, put in a dead end position so he could create a position for the daughter of a friend of a national manager. The Brown stuff was on his nose. And eventually I was downsized.

You know what, I didn't sit outside with a tin cup. I went out there with my resume and got another job.

Perry's religion isn't a problem. Obama's inablity to articulate a plan is.

 

[Unkotare]

[ If the Bush Clan didn't want a full count, there was probably a reason.

Is it that you don't realize what a fool you are making of yourself in denying reality like this, or is it that you don't care as long as you get paid?

 

[Unkotare]

Last job I had, I got totally screwed by my boss.

In other words, you failed and decided to blame your boss instead of taking personal responsibility. Typical liberal.

 

[The Rabbi]

So the overvotes, where 2 candidates were chosen and one happened to be Gore, then the libs wanted that to mean "they meant Gore"? I can see where joe would want that vote counted that way.

So if Anthony Kennedy had decided to flip his Harvey Dent coin that day and voted with the other four justices and allowed recounts authorized by the florida court, would you have been so understanding? Somehow, I doubt it.

But since Jeb and Cruella Harris stopped any accurate counts from being done, we'll never know... except that we all know something fishy went on.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If the Bush Clan didn't want a full count, there was probably a reason.

Again, there was no recount that ever showed Gore the winner.
As for "what if", who the fuck cares? Bush was duly elected president. Get over it.

And he was a very good president, btw. Certainly better than the yard ape in chief we have now. How many people have lost their jobs under Obama? Lost their houses? Lost their 401ks?
The day Obama took office was the high point of the economy in his administration.

 

[JoeB131]

Since the five most populated states have the most people in them, if they could all agree on who to pick for president, that is who we should have as president.

You are a stone-cold idiot. Our Great Experiment would have ended in 1878 if we had more people like you and fewer people like Hamilton.

1878? really? ( I think you are a little confused on dates there, Magic Underpants!)

The argument that the states had these radically different cultures in 1787 could be made as a good excuse, but not really. The country is a lot bigger and a lot more homogenous now.

We don't have two different cultures trying to agree on who to elect as president. That problem got resolved in the 1860's, and frankly,the Electoral College wasn't much of a help in preventing that Civil War. Might have even caused it because Democrats got the most votes, but couldn't agree on a single candidate.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, there was no recount that ever showed Gore the winner..

Except for all the ones that did. But since an official recount was never done we'll never know.

.

As for "what if", who the fuck cares? Bush was duly elected president. Get over it.

Well, you obviously care. You seem to have an awful lot invested in a presidency that has been nearly universally declared a failed one.

 

[JoeB131]

And he was a very good president, btw. Certainly better than the yard ape in chief we have now. How many people have lost their jobs under Obama? Lost their houses? Lost their 401ks?
The day Obama took office was the high point of the economy in his administration.

Oh, good, you added some more racism. because the racism really makes your points more valid.

Bush was an awful president. Obama is worse, but he'd have never happened if Bush hadn't been so awful.

Kind of like how Watergate brought us Carter, who was totally inept. But Carter was a reaction to Nixon, just as Obama was a reaction to Bush. It's political physics, man.

 

[Unkotare]

Blacks don't chose to be black and gays don't chose to be gay. Mormons choose to have stupid, idiotic beliefs. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to judge them on those beliefs. Therefore, not bigotry.

Do bigots choose to be bigots? Your stupidity is really holding you back. It seems that your inability to understand your own Catholic faith primed you for judging other faiths based on your own limitations. In any case, there is no excuse for your filth.

 

[Unkotare]

Oh, good, you added some more racism. because the racism really makes your points more valid.

Do you think your bigotry makes your points more valid?

 

[auditor0007]

Perry or Romney will beat O if things are anywhere near what they are now with the state of the union......and that's not saying anything. Right now, O would only carry CA, IL, and NY.

And you base this on what? Seriously, what all of you are forgetting is the fact that Obama has a proven ability to raise incredible amounts of money, and he will have even more time this time around, since he doesn't have to fight a primary battle. Unless things actually get a lot worse, Obama is going to be incredibly tough to beat.