no one cares how well you did in school as long as you passed.. most jobs don't ask for a gpa, just a degree....
If you've made it to 2005 with the belief that President Bush stole the 2000 election still intact, you're beyond convincing otherwise.
Nevermind the Florida Supreme Court never made any such ruling. Nevermind that several post-election recounts, by Democrats, by Republicans, by reporters, by aliens, and by nutcases all showed that President Bush won the Florida electors...period.
There is no recount of the ballots, no matter how favorably you construe them to Al Gore's favor that show he won the Florida election.
The U.S. Supreme Court didn't stop the recount. They merely ruled that Florida election officials violated the ex-post facto law making prohibition of the U.S. Cons ution by changing the election rules during an election and that they were violating the Voting Rights Act as well as the Equal Protection Clause by only recounting in certain heavily Democratic precincts and that, to be fair, all ballots should be recounted if they were to be recounted at all.
Florida did the smart thing, ceased counting and certified the election.
Post election analysis has confirmed it was the right thing to do. Now, had the post-election recounts gone differently, you may have a point...but, they didn't so, you don't. Get over it for Pete's sake...we've already had a subsequent election and you're still unable to count to 517 -- the lowest marge of victory?
Well i dont think thats right either. I'll agree to half jobs dont ask for gpa, cuz im not sure most do. But im definatly sure most DONT.
GPA is pretty important for some jobs, like if youre an engineer or something.
Yeah, its like why should a Tax Paying Citizen of the United States of America care or worry that his country is going to due to a bas ized election result, then hold resentment for years after seeing years of the consequences.
yeah i forgot it was that same guy
i didn't know gore was in HOR too, thats crazy.
I can't wait until JEB BUSH runs for president, so we can keep the BUSH family in power, seeing as they're so overqualified for presidency.
In austin, i one time saw a sticker that said
"Bush 4012"
I had a good laugh.
No, Gore won a nationwide popularity contest heavily weighted in California and New York -- dens of liberalism. That's why we hold elections to pick electors...not presidents. No one voted for President that day, that's just the name that was put on the ballot...you actually voted for a State slate of electors. The people that actually elect the president.
There are good and sound reasons the United States picks it Executive this way but, again, if you're still hung up on the whole Bush-stole-the-election nonsense, I'm sure an explanation of the Electoral College would be beyond you as well.
Bush won more electoral votes than Gore. Period, end of story.
You really should have paid attention in Civics class.
I'm sorry, I left my tinfoil hat at home.
That entire portion of your post is based on nothing but regurgitated Bush-hatred from the bowels of the sewers in which you run. You have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of any allegation you just made.
The fact remains, the man is President of the United States and, quite frankly, there are thousands of Yale and Harvard alum that would be offended by your statement -- and they haven't been elected President.
Define the consequences, please.
Not really... Gore was presented as a pompous, boring robot with very little charisma or ability to relate to common people. Bush was the one portrayed as a doofus.If you remember correctly, Gore was portrayed just as dumb as Bush on every comedy show for the entire election.
I'm not even familiar with that post, last August was before I started helping Yonivore with his posting.
But, it's interesting to see how he could evoke such a passionate response in that forum as well.
Presented as?
Mr. Love Story. Mr. I discovered the Love Canal environmental hazard. Mr. Internet. Yeah, his reputation wasn't deserved.
elpimpo, back me up on this one with facts, cuz i know they're out there and i know you know them!
But... you claim "There are good and sound reasons the United States picks it Executive this way but..."
BUT, wasn't the electoral college good and sound back in early USA days?
And now your good and sound reasons for it being a good idea are because New York and California are quote unquote DENS OF LIBERALISM?
I am a cynic, an asshole, anything like that, but you my friend are a fascist!
Dens of liberalism? Dens of liberalism? Say what you have typed out loud to see if it doesnt sound as absurd as you are coming off to be.
Dens of liberalism?
So just because California and New york have more people living there, and most people who do live there decide to vote for gore, their vote doesnt count simply by virtue of California and New York being DENS OF LIBERALISM?
youre a facist.
you are speeding up the demise of the American Empire my friend. Educate yourself, please
el pimpo, drop some knowledge on this fool about the 'good and sound reasons' the electoral college is around today
I'm not commenting on who deserved what, just how they were portrayed. Whether it was accurate or not is another discussion that I'll let you guys fight over.Presented as?
Mr. Love Story. Mr. I discovered the Love Canal environmental hazard. Mr. Internet. Yeah, his reputation wasn't deserved.
hey, so what's the deal ressurrected...you schizophrenic or bipolar? you on meds? just curious. thanks.
as for bush being dumb...hate away...the venom just doesn't matter anymore...
Yes. I've always been a fan of the electoral college.
Actually, that is the good and sound reason it was ins uted to begin with. So that no particular geographic area could run roughshod over another. It's a State's rights issue.
Then, my idiot fellow poster, so are the founding fathers who invented the Electoral system of elections. If you'll read the Cons ution, you were never even meant to vote for President or Senator.
I stand by it. California and New York are dens of liberalism...well, maybe soclialism is more like it.
Yes, but, do you often repeat yourself in written form?
Nope. Not what I said. And, besides, their votes did count...the slates of electors in those two states went to Al Gore. They picked their electors.
Then, by your definition, I find myself in fine company among those who wrote the U. S. Cons ution.
Empire? Who's the fascist now? We're not an empire...
Yeah, el pimpo, do that.
i said this because you said
"as did most voters. thats how elections are won"
i pointed out you were wrong, most voters voted for gore. Then you bring into the electoral college as if you had said "he won the electoral vote" which you didn't say or imply
No he lost the electoral vote, if we're talking about President Bush, then obviously gore lost the electoral vote. I know what the electoral college is and why it was made but i think it was for the reasons you just now listed but back in early american times. You know, back when south dakota had a population of 1000.
The use of the electoral college now does not make much sense. There are millions of voters in each state.
And i called you a fascist because of the way you dismiss entire states holding tens of millions of people as "dens of liberalism" so that theyre individual opinions don't matter
dammit pimpo where are you
I'll listen to complaints about the electoral vote when it is also suggested that the President must gain a majority of the nation's popular vote (50%) to win the Presidency... as neither Gore nor Clinton did.
Not on a state-by-state basis, where it counts. Presidential elections are won one state at a time.
Well duh, do you think that if Presidents were elected based on the popular vote presidential candidates would spend so much time on campaigning in so-called "battleground" states?
Look at it this way. If Bush had aggressively campaigned in California, he could have reduced the margin...but, why would he spend any campaign capital in a state he knew he couldn't win. Therefore, there was little effort expended and the vote showed it. Same in New York. Same for Gore in many Republican States...
That's why the popular vote is crap. It doesn't tell you anything. Campaigns are won or lost by identifying those states where you can sway the electoral votes to your camp. Period.
Those reasons still exist. That is protected the country from my perceived dens of liberalism is just fortuitous for me (and, in my opinion, the rest of the country)...this time.
Try telling that to Rhode Island or Montana or Alaska or New Mexico. No one wants a few states (whether they are conservative or liberal) to decide national policy. If you don't leave the system intact, future national politicians won't even have to consider the positions of middle America. They'll just have to pander to the five most populated states and say to with the other 45.
Well aside from my opinion being just that, an opinion, their votes were counted -- they sent the two largest slates of Democratic electors to Washington. I can't deny that.
Unfortunately for them, Middle America banded together to offset them.
If pimpo is as smart as you're tending to indicate, he knows you're wrong on this and is staying out of the argument.
Actually, I think Gore did get more than 50% of the popular vote. Nevermind, I forgot about Nader.
According to TRO's logical, if we removed half of all liberals in new york and california, and spread them out evenly over middle america, resulting in no more "dens of liberalism" then those displaced liberals votes should count more by virtue of them not being a "den of liberalism"
so as long as not too many people thinking the same thing are clutched together, then the opinions/votes count
I did take history and government, i just thought for myself while taking those classes.
I disagree. The electoral college system was specifically a demand made by the smaller colonies (led by Rhode Island, in fact) so that Virginia and the larger colonies wouldn't have a disproportionate amount of influence.
Yes, they were afraid of a dictator, but the three equal branches of government concept pretty much neutralized that fear.
That's not what I said.
That's called daydreaming.
so in other words, the electoral college provides a voice for the minority? but, you are also opposing the democratic filibusters, which is in principle the same thing(protecting minority rights so the majority doesnt just trample all over). can you say, hypocrite?Try telling that to Rhode Island or Montana or Alaska or New Mexico. No one wants a few states (whether they are conservative or liberal) to decide national policy. If you don't leave the system intact, future national politicians won't even have to consider the positions of middle America. They'll just have to pander to the five most populated states and say to with the other 45.
Plus it's his precious electoral college that he is defending that grants california and new york more electoral votes combined than like 5 or 6 middle states!
and he also said somewhere "then they'd just focus on winning a few states"
they do do that!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
