Sorry, Spoofer, but whatever they may be saying in broad terms, they disagree very much on the specifics. Gore’s for a manual recount; Bush is agin it. Statewide, locally, it doesn’t matter.
The dirty not-so-secret is that the archaic voting systems that are less likely to definitively record a voter’s preference tend to be in poorer areas. Poorer people tend to vote more Democratic. Even a hand count of Duval or Hillsborough counties wouldn’t be likely to help Bush much. His votes have already been counted fairly thoroughly; most of the ‘undercount’ (might as well move this term over; the parallels and contrasts between counting the citizenry and counting votes are getting increasingly amusing) is in Democratic areas. And just as the Republicans are against fixing the Census undercount, they’re also against fixing this one.
So Bush isn’t going to agree. Instead, his people will claim some more that they’ve won Florida three times (they haven’t won it once, yet; they have a lead of 300 votes with a few thousand to count, and possibly some manual recounts ahead, but it’s never been ‘won’ by anybody except John Ellis), and how Gore is demanding that Florida be counted ‘over and over again’ (i.e. once), and all the rest of the outright lies that they keep on coming up with until I’m ready to retch.
So Gore’s said he just wants the one thing he’s asked for, other than what would have been required if he’d been in a coma the last week, which is the four-county hand recount. That’s it, that’s all, no over-and-over, just this one thing that the GOP keeps on blocking. Seems reasonable here, and I bet it sounds reasonable to all but those who wouldn’t even consider voting for a Democrat. So the Republicans will spend a lot of time in court trying to block things.
Bush rejected Gore’s proposal. Not exactly a shocker there, after Katherine Harris rejected the Florida counties’ explanations for needing more time to hand-count.
I gotta wonder, though, if Ms. Harris had said okay to the continued hand-count, if Bush would have accepted the proposal. Anyone else thinking this?
What I wonder is whether Katherine Harris is in contact with the Bush campaign in any way, or whether she is acting as a “free agent” (but subject to her own pre-existing biases).
Her announcement between the Gore and Bush statements was just a bit too pat (though with the fast pace of developments, it is possible to have happened inadvertently).
If she had been in contact with the campaign at any time since the election, it would be a travesty.
The woman has balls to spare and she is operating completely from self-interest. She has expressed her desier to run for the Senate, and she’s willing to do whatever it takes to get the backing she needs.
She isn’t just partisan or biased. She’s in collusion.
Does anyone know of the legality of getting the WHOLE State of Florida to consent to a hand count? The expense? What are the legal precedents for this? Who will pay for this? It’s easy for Gore to wave a magic wand and say “Let’s do a state-wide hand count!” but how would it actually happen? I am seriously curious, because if it could really happen, I don’t know if I would be against it (if it could be overseen at the Federal level, with far more objectivity and structure.)
And what about the varying standards on a hand count? First the chad has to be detached at least in one corner, now they want to accept a “pregant” chad, they seem to change these standards as they go along. What a complete mess. Kind of reminds me of the Keystone Cops.
Most people here are actually trying to engage in a debate, except for you. Even people who are on your side generally are digging up info, citing facts, figures, law and case history that most closely approximates this situation. I can respect them, and their position, even while disagreeing with them, or just interpreting the data differently.
Except for you.
You’re like a petulant child whining because things aren’t going your way. What’s next? A screaming hissy fit?
You’re making insinuations, and personal and character attacks without any evidence other than the fact that you aren’t getting your way. When you get slammed hard enough in one thread, you run away and start another, reciting the same old inflammatory rhetoric and vague insinuations as the previous thread.
This evil, selfish Republican is getting sick and tired of hearing you; not the Liberal/Democratic viewpoint, just your miserable, half-hearted attempts at “debate” that are thin disguises for mudslinging.
There are plenty of intelligent and intellectual people from all political spectrums on this board to engender lively, civil (well, they usually start out that way, at least) debate. You aren’t one of them.
Do us all a favor. Go away until you can muster an argument and make it without character attacks on signifigant portions of the American population and this message board.
Take some small comfort in knowing that frothing little goobers such as yourself have had one small impact on this election: you made me go out and vote.
<<IMNSHO, Gore just seized the situation firmly, and no doubt he seized the public’s sympathy as well.>>
I think Gore is loosing several hundred thousands votes a day. The only way for either of them to win in 2004 is to step aside magnanimously, as Nixon did 40 years ago. He won 8 years later. Whoever gets the Oral Office now, will lose it in 2004, unless extremely lucky (as Clinton was with the economy). They are both young, both can wait. Yes, Gore seized the situation firmly, he is the tackiest of the two.
Hm, nice juxtaposition there. ExTank, Stoid did not insult you directly in this thread, but your remark sure looks like an direct personal insult to me. Cool it when you are in Great Debates.
And when you can cite instances of me personally attacking anyone on this board, I might take your obvious disdain for me under consideration. Until then, the fact that I find Bush to be a petulant child and the Secretary of State to be blatantly self-interested in her actions is an opinion I have every right to express (and you have every right to argue with or dismiss or ignore.) And I am not alone in holding it. Watch TV for 5 minutes, pick up any magazine or newspaper, listen to the radio.
My other threads and my opinions about Republicans in general are not the subject here, nor are they really the subject anywhere else at this point. That you wish to drag them around from thread to thread because you took my generalizations so personally that you can’t get over it is really your decision. And mine is to not go there with you.
I continue to be fascinated by the self righteous indignation that allows people around here to bahave more rudely and shamefully towards me, ina very direct and personal manner calculated to shame or wound me, than I have ever behaved towards anyone in my whole life, in person or online, including whole groups of Americans at once in my posts on this board. The logic that justifies that must be really complex and creative.
When and if I ever feel the need to re-calibrate my behavior, I shall look to people who behave better than I do for guidance, not worse.
stoid
I thought we had a forum for that. And it’s not GD.
Have you ever considered for a second… just for a second, no more, no less… that she might be right, and Gore might be wrong? Didn’t think so. That’d be asking too much, I suppose.
Anyone who denies that Bush got a majority of votes in the original count, and in all the recounts so far, is on something (and I don’t mean their chair). I mean, this whole thing is redefining the word “denial”. Perhaps… just perhaps… more people in Florida voted for Bush than for Gore? It’s only a possibility… you know, like heavier-than-air flying machines?
I saw nothing new in either Gore’s proposal or Bush’s refusal. While I cannot know their motives, each act is easily explained in terms of bald self-interest. Neither candidate offered a compromise that represented a meaningful shift from their initial positions.
As to the “let’s meet and show the folks we are not enemies” part, I sincerely doubt even the American public is hullible enough to fall for that one. Both candidates have proven willing to escalate the confrontational rhetoric in this situation right to the brink of the public’s tolerance.
Gore should have made his proposal for a full recount at the same time he made his specific requests. It would almost certainly have been rejected and is almost certainly impractical, but it would have beena gesture toward fairness at a time when such a gesture might actually have accomplished something.
Bush should have found his regard for Florida election laws before initiating a federal suit that stunk of hypocrisy in a half-dozen ways. Had he, from the beginning, placed his faith in the process (and perhaps a certain Secretary of State) he might have reassured the public that he actually had some concern for their will and some willingness to abide by his own principals, even at some risk to his ambitions.
As it stands, they are both losers. But only one will become a Presidential loser. I sincerely hope that that one has actually learned something from the past few days, but my optimism is flagging just now.
I haven’t denied that he got a majority, and I haven’t hear anyone else deny it. And if more people in Florida voted for Bush, great. Why doesn’t Bush want to find out for sure either way, using methods that he signed into law in his own state?
Sorry, when the behavior since day one is to not look for more information, then I have to think it is because you don’t want to find it.
If Bush is so confident, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by allowing the recounts to go forward. He should take Gore up on his offer and they should petition together to get the whole state recounted. He’d look like a really good guy. As it is, he looks paranoid.
The country is split right down the middle about the men themselves, yet 65-75 percent of the people (depending on the hour, day, and pollster) think that doing the manual recounts is perfectly reasonable. What does that say to you? To me it says that doing the manual recounts is pretty reasonable…violating one’s own stated beliefs and principals to stop them isn’t.
Your timing is exquisite, oh great moderator. :rolleyes:
I have not attacked any other Liberal or their position, inspite of the rich opportunities provided by the less intelligent and eloquent members of this board that fit into that political category.
But I’ll call a spade when I see one. I make no apologies to Stoidela, who once made the elitist and highly insulting comment that us military-types aren’t “her kind of people” (whatsamatter, Stoid, we’re good enough to bleed and die for you, but not good enough to be “included” in your list of “the right kind of people”?) but will apologize to any other Liberal/VP Gore supporter on this board who was offended by my “frothing little goober” comment directed at Stoidela.
You consistently make blatant and highly insulting generalisations, and then retreat to the “I wasn’t talking about you; only making a general observation. If you’re offended, it’s your fault, not mine” wimp outs.
If I or anyone else made the same general comments concerning minorities as you have about Republicans, and threw in degrading comments equaling your insinuations about partisan malfeasance, we’d have been banned from this board (it’s happened to others, if you doubt that).
Your only defense is that you are “arguing” from a position that is generally considered (at least by our esteemed moderators :rolleyes: ) to be “politically correct” and “liberally fashionable”. I reject political correctness and political fashion as the height of hypocrisy. Your defense, and tenuous, treacly claim to some moral high ground, cuts no slack with me.
Goodness, exTank. In two sentences you have managed to cast a very broad insult to those whose political opinions differ from your own, imply a personal insult to Stoidella (without directly calling names, though, well done), and insinuate that our moderators might be less than objective in exercising their authority due to their political beliefs. Impressive.
But you will do it in the Pit, right, if you once again feel you must say that Stoid, or any other particular poster, is a “frothing little goober” or somesuch. Them’s the rules. I am uncertain if this is sufficiently clear to you. As well, if you have a problem with David and I’s moderating, take it to email or take it to the Pit. This forum is not the place for that sort of thing. Got it?
I’ll take that as a “No” to my original question, Stoid.
To answer your question, yes, I have. I believe that my posts reflect that mentality. You’ll be hard-pressed to cite otherwise.
You, however, obviously have completely ignored the possibility that you are wrong. Your posts reflect that. If you wish to be taken seriously (I am beginning to question whether you do or not), I would suggest that you cease ranting and raving and begin considering other people’s viewpoint.
After all, it’s only fair to do so.
Here, in this very thread, RTFirefly said:
Yes, I know that’ll be argued semantically, but there’s an example for ya
