No. You haven’t cast a valid ballot, and no, your ballot shouldn’t be counted as a vote for whom you intended. If state or county law mandates that a vote be cast in a certain way, precinct election workers don’t have the power to supercede that, and the only votes that should be counted are those that meet the legal mandate. It’s the individual’s opportunity to make sure that he or she complies with election law and valid standards. And, of course, the precinct election workers should be better educated to make sure they don’t give out erroneous advice.
Actually, what you said was this:
which is rather different from saying if the state wide recount that Gore requested had been completed, Bush would have won anyway. The freezing to which you attribute Bush’s victory had nothing to do with it.
Well, if “by the action of law” you mean “because he was legally elected in 2000 and won a clear majority in 2004”, then you are of course correct. If you mean that his re-election in 2004 is tainted by the numerous accusations regarding Ohio, none of which have a scrap of hard evidence to support them, then you are of course incorrect.
I welcome your non-partisan attempts to be sure that no one is disenfranchised, regardless of who they vote for. Isn’t it funny, though, that you condemn alleged efforts by Republicans to do this, but not even mention it when Democrats attempt to do the same thing.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes Hentor, and a soon as you produce any proof, I shall join you in condeming the practice. I have no particular love for the Republicans, but neither am I a partisan shill who is going to pop off half cocked at alligations of wrongdoing.
Ahh, it wounds me to the core that you have unilaterally judged me unfit to be a Democrat. Oh mercy me, if only there were a party whose members make a point of saying how all viewpoints are welcome, a party that held as it’s foundation an idea of inclusion, not exclution. Oh, woe is me, where can I find such a party?
Why should I switch? I dislike the Republicans more than the Democrats. What bothers you, I suspect, is that I dislike blind partisan obedience more then either of them.
Two things: #1, without any proof, they remain allegations, and #2, which I alluded to above, what exactly would the point of manipulating a few thousand votes have been? Say you are a Republican, and you decide you want to manipulate the vote to favor George Bush, and you have the means to do so (somehow). Since 1948, the closet election in Florida was in 1964 when the difference was 2% of the votes. Even if you thought that the 2000 race was going to be twice as tight, what you would need to do is disenfranchise 1% of the voters (60,000 Gore supporters). I’ll allow that you could target your efforts towards heavily Democratic districts, but to be even so, you’re going to knock out some Bush votes too. You want some margin of error, I’ll assume, so lets say that you assume of all the voters you disenfranchise, 2/3 will be Gore supporters, and 1/3 will be Bush supporters. That means that you have to disenfranchise 80,000 voters, in just a few select areas, without being detected, for your plan to have even an outside chance of succeding. Madness! I haven’t seen even the most ardent conspiracy theorist make claims on that scale, and how you could begin to even dream that you could keep tampering on that scale secret is beyond me. Why, then, would you set out to disenfranchise just a few thousand people when history tells you that doing so would likely have had no effect on the outcome of the election, and the cost if you were caught would be enormous? It is not a logical position to hold, particularly when what did happen is something that can easily be explained by human error (which includes a few scattered individuals who might have done something shady on their own hook)
I didn’t say it doesn’t matter, I said in that, in real life, 99 times out of 100, it doesn’t make a difference in the outcome. There’s rather a big difference between those two statements, no?
Oh, and Captain Amazing did a fine job of answering your other question.
RTFirefly has kindly invited us to continue non-Florida-related discussions of Lieberman v. Lamont in this thread. (Let’s see how long that lasts!)
Indictments, convictions and prison time aren’t enough proof for you? For example, see here. For a wikipedia history of the incident, see here.
I really don’t care what you are. I just know that you aren’t a Democrat, because it would be really stupid for someone who has nothing but reflexive condemnation of a political party to remain a member of that political party.
Natheless, please don’t discourage him from voting Democrat! Please!
I’m really not a bright person. Maybe you could explain the relevance of something that happened 2 years later in a different state to the Florida presidential election of 2000? Thanks awfully.
I’m a Democrat who cares about the core values of the party-equality, liberty, less government intrution into our private lives-and detests the champion of bloated big government that it has become. Sorry I don’t fit your ideal of a boot licking partisan toady.
You’re absolutely right - I was indeed attacking you - repeatedly, yet - over a mere nitpick.
I havve offered a full, detailed admission of my errors here.
Please don’t confuse the Dems with the Libertarians.
BrainGlutton’s provided a pretty good cite. This is old, cold news.
Umm, no. That would be your role, to produce such proof.
We’ve got evidence on the table that thousands of Florida non-felons were disenfranchised. If you can demonstrate that this was somehow nothing out of the ordinary, go for it. But right now, all we have is your claim that this is so.
My goodness! I have failed to present proof for claims that other people have made, but that I haven’t!
I should slink away from this board in shame.
If you don’t like Mother Jones, how about Vanity Fair?
I’m not sure what I’ve said that this constitutes a rebuttal to.
I thought you said ‘FACTS’.
Given what you consider FACT, it hardly seems worth looking at your OPINION.
Self-nitpick: Yes, I know the Libertarians are not committed to equality. (They’re not against it, but proto-Libertarian Barry Goldwater viewed the Civil Rights Act as illegitimate government intrusion into a business’s right to refuse service to anybody, and I’m sure practically all Libs think the same way.)
Still, your description of the “core values of the party” applies better to the Libs than to the Democratic Party at any point in the past 100 years, at least, of its history. This ain’t Thomas Jefferson’s party any more, mister, and there’s no good reason why it should be!
The Bradblog has coverered the election fraud case since 2000. Read and see if you think it is imaginary.It includes extensive voting machine flaw discussion. Pallast was thr reporter who broke the Florida wiping likely democrats off the voter rolls.He also has a blog. The newspapers and tv dont cover the story.
Oh, I’m sorry. Had I known I might not have even bothered to try bringing it up in the first place. But, I’ll give it a go. Like many Republicans, part of your argument against the issues brought up in the 2000 election was to try to create a strawman of vast “conspiracy.” Because, of course, vast conspiracies are quite unlikely, therefore what you opponents were suggesting must therefore be unlikely.
Instead, you suggest that simple human error is a much more parsimonious explanation. I offered examples of GOP behavior in the election immediately following the 2000 election, behavior that has been adjudged illegal and for which some have already served time. Behavior that has now been linked by one of those involved to the administration that was involved in the 2000 election. Behavior that has furthermore received a good deal of money from the RNC in terms of paying for the legal defense.
For someone who is so keen on avoiding mindless partisanship, but would rather hold leaders accountable for their wrongdoing, you seem to be very quick to engage in knee-jerk defense of misdeads and wrongdoing of the current GOP. It kind of puts lie to your accusations of boot-licking partisan toadyism.
I also find it very ironic that your description of the Democratic party includes so many Republican talking points. Okay, I don’t really find it ironic.
Actually, you should, due to the ostensible topic of the thread. Since that’s also one of the big problems a lot of Dems have with Lieberman.
[Arlo Guthrie]
(Remember Lieberman? The thread’s about Lieberman!)
[/Arlo]
Hey RTF, I’m still waiting for that proof you were gonna furnish. Still waiting. I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time. All you gotta do is present proof that people were delibertly disenfranchised. Put up or shut up.
Yup. And I stand by that. Too bad you haven’t even put a dent in it.
You sure did! Boy, was my face red when I realized that all of my passionate defense of the Republicans in the 2002 New Hampshire state election was for naught! You showed me good and proper!
Umm, not to nitpick or anything, I know this is in GD where facts don’t matter, but actually you didn’t. The most that anyone has been able to demonstrate (and please correct me if I’m wrong here) is that Tobin’s office made about 100 calls to the White House political affairs office in the 2 months leading up to the election. Oh my. Someone working for the GOP calling the political affairs office of a GOP administration. Boil them in oil!
This I can’t dispute, but I also don’t see the relevence of it. You know what your problem is Hentor? You’re a bigot, and you can’t see beyond your own bigoted preconceptions. “Republican” to you is the same as “nigger” to a racist or “kike” to an anti-semite. No thought is required, no consideration of the facts is desireable. Just the fact that someone is a Republican is enough for you, nothing else is required, just being a “Republican” warrents your hate and scorn. You’re pathetic.
I await with bated breath your explanation as to how equality, liberty, and less government intrution into our private lives are not fundamental principles of the Democratic party. Do go on, please.
Oh, and as for the Libertian thing? Please don’t tease me. A major political party adopting common sense? sigh Sounds like heaven to me.
Dear mods,
Was that last post out of line? I was thinking about it, and even though I wasn’t using bigot as an insult or a pejorative, merely as an observation of Hentor’s posting history, I realize it could be taken that way. If so, I apologize and please edit my post as y’all see fit.
“Equality” is, I concede. Or should be, at least. (And I wish Dems were a lot more committed to it than we are; maybe then Dems in Congress would be pushing for a much more redistributive tax system and a class-based affirmative action program, a “social escalator” to uplift the poor into the middle class – and also working to break the disproportionate political, economic and social power of the overclass. But this is one instance where no significant correlation can be discerned between “principles” and conduct.) But both the Dem and Pub traditions approve of government intrusion – in different forms: Pubs want to regulate your bedroom, Dems want to regulate your workplace. The same applies to “liberty.” It’s been that way for a very long time now, as I’m sure you know. And Dems have not had any core-principle problem with “bloated government” at least since FDR became president. Jeez, what kind of party do you think you’ve been voting for all these years?
Flame Hentor all you like, but this goes too far! 
The first link was to a story about how one of the actual jammers is going to make a defense that he was operating under directives from the RNC and the White House.
Gee, is this out of line? Hmmmm, I wonder.
Actually, another Republican said recently that I equate “Republican” with rapist or fascist. Is this your new organized line of defense? Gee, if you don’t like Republicans, it must be because of your limited thinking. As opposed to the fact that they have been involved in undermining our voting process and their total control of the government has yielded nearly six years of failure on almost every front.
But don’t let that get in the way of your knee-jerk defense of them. You ol’ Democrat, you.
I brought up the 2002 phone jamming scandal to counter your tried and true Republican defense tactic of saying “Well, these bad acts over here, they are completely independent of all other bad acts. These must be merely honest mistakes.”
People like you, in their defense of the current administration, want to separate every memo, every whistle-blower, every indictment and every new revelation into its own separate pixel. Then you cry out when someone else notes the overall picture about the lunacy of suggesting a conspiracy!
Assuming that is Hentor’s POV, how would it be in any way inappropriate? 