Since there haven’t been many election posts in the last few days, try clicking this one. Any comments from the “Bush won, now get over it” contingent?
Yes, yes, I know the multi-media full-state hand count is not yet complete. I’m just stirring the pot for now, and looking forward to how Bush apologists might explain it when (as I would bet, not if) his occupancy of our White House is shown to be illegitimate.
Any comments? I normally avoid election threads, but since you asked I have just one: “yawn”
I’m sick of hearing about the election. It’s over. We’re stuck with the results. There is no chance that there Bush’ll resign. There’s no chance for an impeachment over this. Even if Gore did get the most votes (and there was no overwhelming evidence in that article one way or the other), at this point: who cares? Bush is in for the next four years, and all the yelling and whining about it is dull. All that this ongoing shrieking (not by you personally, but in general) is doing is desensitizing the populace to any legitimate complaints. I’d be saying the same thing if Gore had become president and the Bush supporters were repetitivly harping on it.
Fenris
Everybody lost. We voluntarily (again) as a society eliminated the only logical reason for democracy, which was majority rule. Some people never even knew there was a logical reason for democracy. The 400 people who run this country had the best party of their lives. They think we’re all idiots anyway for not even knowing they exist.
Sorry 'bout the word “legitimate”. I meant to say “any complaints where the outcome could be affected”
Fenris
My only comment is that this latest news is further reason to eliminate the Electoral College, a grossly outdated sop to the slave states. Of course, maybe it would be better to simply eliminate the slave states altogether. Wait. That’s a different thread, ain’t it? Shit. Where’s the remote?
**
Except we don’t live in a democracy, which kinda makes your whole post pointless.
And, without more diligence, we may be stuck with someone who holds democratic values that are, ah, sometimes disposable. Let’s look at another recent example of “throw the election results out” or “some votes are worth more than others”
Take the hog farmers, for instance. They were required to pay USDA money for each 100 lbs of pork sold. These funds were used to finance that ad campaign “that other white meat”. About 15,000 small farmers said no we don’t want to pay that anymore so an election was called and the continuation of this “free advertising” was defeated by the vast majority of hog farmers. Ok, that seems fair enough to me.
No way, said Bush. He ignored the election results and has insisted that hog farmers continue to pay USDA the money to continue the eat pork campaign because BIG hog farmers appealed to him to continue this free advertising. I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.
News source: National Public Radio
I’m not as easy to persuade and conquer as you are. Democracy is Jefferson’s word. Subtract everything Jefferson did for this country and you would be correct by default. If you are suggesting we live in a dictatorship, I disagree. If you think a Republic (res publica) isn’t based on democracy, most people would disagree, by definition of their right to vote.
Yeah, those people probably meant to vote for Gore, but couldn’t follow fairly simple instructions, and thus didn’t. Those ballots, however, did not actually show a legal vote. They could not be counted. So far, every count of ballots that could legally be counted has shown Bush as the winner.
If you’re going to suggest that some votes are worth more than others, I’ll agree. The votes that have only one candidate selected are worth more than those that have two or more candidates selected.
I still have no problem believing it possible that Gore had more voters intending to vote for him in Florida than Bush, even without Palm Beach County. With a statewide victory margin that narrow, anything is possible. The fact that this might be so demands that we do whatever we can to avoid this outcome in the future, to the extent it was a result of poor ballot design or murky standards. Personally, I don’t believe any handcount or statistical analysis will ever prove anything conclusively one way or the other.
But that doesn’t mean Bush was NOT elected legitimately, not if “legitimate” = “by the rules agreed upon prior to the election.” Some problems, even if we concede they are real, have no remedy after the fact. It’s not as if Bush could even have conceded (I’m not implying he was inclined to). Legally cast ballots decide the election, that’s all. If we narrow our focus to consider Palm Beach County alone, there’s just nothing to be done retroactively, it seems to me.
Or am I misunderstanding you? What should we (or Bush) do with this information? What reaction would please you?
What would satisfy me?
Al Gore takes over for Dick (Hearthrob) Cheney as VP
George W. commits ritual seppuku in Rose Garden.
That would pretty much get it, I suppose.
Brian Bunnyhurt wrote:
Um … if their existence is such a big secret, how is it that you know about them?
Besides, we all know the country is really being run by Roswell-esque gray aliens disguised as people.
Good question. Its simple really, I know that money is not happiness, so I am equal with them in this regard, but, I also know that money is control, so I also share this mindset with them. The folks who climb over themselves to get an extra dollar here and there don’t know either. They don’t know they aren’t happy because of it, and that they are controlled because of it. The evidence that “those” people exist is real, just not served up on the information platforms they control.
If poor people want to think and act like an “ultra-rich” person, then they should vote for guarantees and services (such as healthcare and education and social security) that eliminate the need for money. That’s crystal clear intelligence, and that’s also beating them at their own game. If one doesn’t have alot of money, then they should first help to make money less necessary to their survival. The best things in life really are free. What are the chances of poor people thinking like a rich person? I don’t know, what are the chances of a rich person thinking like a poor person?
Note: Money is government property. So sad, so simple.
It’s now 401! 
Nice rant, Brian – but aren’t you one of those climbing people? So you are saying you know you are unhappy and controlled and are therefore superior to the ignorant masses? Well yippee-ki-yay. :rolleyes:
Last time we met, you were railing against the evils of communism (you even called Jesus a communist somewhat bizarrely). A week later you are suddenly an ardent supporter of government run institutions. What gives? I’ve heard of reeds swaying in the wind, but this is ridiculous.
Hmm… I’ll tell everyone everything the article contains, in two words: “More conjecture.”
Conjecture don’t win nobody the White House, m’boy. Gore won nothing. Unless you want to live in denial for the next four years.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:
Just like Cleopatra’s royal river barge?
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
Well, which rules are we going by? Do we include the rule/law that states that the top candidates, Bush and Gore, should have been the first two voting holes on the ballot, but were not? Because if you include THAT law, then no, he wasn’t elected legitimately. (And whether a democrat designed the ballot and whether others signed off on it is not the point. The point is that the ballot was not designed properly, according to Florida law).
Just picking some of the nits that have left me in a state of utter despair whenever I hear the words “president” and “bush” next to each other in reference to current events as opposed to history.
Stoid
The Founding Fathers would have cringed at your terminology. Our republic is designed to protect the individual from the mob, as well as the populace from the government. “Majority Rules” - Ack! Heaven forfend.
stoid
Communism is just another form of hierarchy, and if you see the world in black (communism) and white (capitalism) then it proves my point. Also, it sounds like you are admitting much more than I ever was as per money-digging and unhappiness. Majority always rules by nature, whether they do it pro-actively or cowardly-passively, and where were your rosey definitions during slavery and women’s insuffrage? You can’t protect anyone from the majority unless the majority wills it, see marijuana laws, and please note that you demonize the majority by assuming they are dangerous to their own idea of rights. They cannot extend rights to themselves and not others and also call them rights, those would be called privileges. In other words, during slavery, freedom was a privilege. Did you mention terminology?