Neal Blaikie wrote:
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > Ah, well, this goes hand in hand with Democratic ballot stuffing, which
> > would imply not that Bush won dishonestly, but that he won despite the
> > systemic dishonesty of Democrats.
> > I also saw a TV interview of the guy who invented the voting machines
> > used in Florida. He said the most frequent cause of dimpled chads was
> > the punching of multiple ballots at the same time, stacked on top of
> > each other, that the machines can punch up to 5 ballots at the same
> > time.... no wonder there were so many Democratic dimpled chads.
> Are you a republican or a libertarian? This seems like an awfully partisan
> position if the latter. I prefer to think that both sides were corrupt, but
> in different ways.
I am libertarian and feel the same way, except that in my experience,
democrats are far more dishonest and corrupt than republicans.
> It's one of the reasons I almost always vote third party
> when I can find a candidate I like. As for Bush winning dishonestly, it's
> pretty obvious to anyone willing to look at the evidence clearly that his
> "victory" was a manufactured coup, but then, I wouldn't want Gore either
> (for different reasons). I could provided links if you're interested.
I'd be very interested in seeing more of the leftist crap that is being
spewed by the DNC, Terry McAuliffe, and his supporting special interest
> As for those ballots, my brother lives in Palm Beach County and is one of
> the people whose ballot was thrown out. He is an intelligent, capable
> person who has been voting in the same location for many years. He told me
> that he noticed a problem with the ballot right away, but when he tried to
> get another one, was told by one of the workers "too bad." This is probably
> just some poor schlub of a volunteer being lazy, but is symptomatic of a
> much larger problem.
Do you mean he screwed up his ballot right away because he thought he
was too intelligent to have to read the directions?
Now, if he did not pursue charges against the poll worker, thats his
> As far as I'm concerned, we don't have a president.
The system worked, despite democrat controlled districts across the
country not counting over 2 million absentee ballots (which, when
counted, supported Bush by 60%, which would have given him the popular
vote if they were counted). You are just being a pouty little spoil
sport, like leftists usually are. Its rather indicative of Dems in
general: when the GOP took over congress in 1994, the Dems actually
thought they would keep their comittee chairmanships, majority seats on
comittees, and preferred offices, and got rather snooty about giving
THe fact is that Bush got far more votes, and a far greater percentage
of the vote than Clinton ever got, yet you don't see anyone on the GOP
side whining about him being legitimately elected.
The fact is that the hand recounts conducted to date by Miami-Dade
Herald actually wound up giving 6 more votes to Bush than to Gore, so
leftist claims of a 'stolen' election are, again, false, whining,
propagandizing. Get over it, grow up, give it up, admit the truth. You
may not like the outcome. I didn't like the outcome of '92 or '96. I
thought that Clinton was a philandering, dishonorable, traitorous SOB,
but I did not in any way claim that he was not legitimately the
President. Despite him admitting to being a liar, a perjurer, abusing
his office, violating his oath of office, selling out the presidency,
conducting fishing expeditions against political opponents with hundreds
of illegally obtained FBI files, I did not pout about him getting off on
the impeachment trial thanks to Democrats throwing truth to the winds in
the name of political advantage.
Gore has been cheated of the Presidency, but not by Bush. Clinton should
have been out of office over a year ago. Its Clinton who cheated Gore of
the job. If Clinton was not such a pathetic president, Gore would likely
have won. If Clinton hadn't approved Reno's Elian stormtrooper raid,
Gore would have won Florida by a statistically significant margin.
The fact is that the variability in the Florida vote, using those voting
machines, was a statistical error at a minimum of 600 votes, within
which Bush had a slight advantage. Even if it were legally possible to
call a voter tie, the popular vote does not select electors to the
electoral college. The Legislature selects who goes to Washington, and
Congress chooses who to accept. Since both bodies were Republican
majority bodies, what makes you think that in a statistical tie that
they would select anybody BUT GOP electors?
The fact is that there are so many quite Constitutional mechanisms which
were against Gore winning the electoral vote that you really have no
basis whatsoever to claim that Bush isn't the President. Its just
nothing but typical leftist whining.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:39 MDT