Nader!

[ATB]

Presidential elections unsafe at any year!

[CeeKay]

so McCain ain't the oldest candidate anymore 

[mikeg]

Aren't we sooooooo over him by now?!

[Knightshade Dragon]

Thanks for wasting everyones time Nader.  Way to add static to the equation.

[unbreakable]

Yeah, I can't see anyone voting Nader this year.  There isn't the fevered pitch of a dream that a magical third party is going to sweep in and save us all.  Bloomberg already tried, and his overtures were already greeted with a resounding yawn. 

And valid or not, many Democrats now view Nader as a "spoiler" from the 2000 election.  Their criticisms would be more useful if put into reviewing all the voting irregularities instead, but whatevs.  No matter what, I don't see anyone showing any excitement except for Obama.

[Eduardo X]

I'll consider a vote for Nader, but I'll probably just not vote. I don't seem to agree with any of the candidates thus far.

[denoginizer]

I agree with Nader on many domestic issues.  But his foreign policy positions are a joke.  I can't help feeling that voting for Nader would be a vote for McCain in a roundabout way.  If Obama gets the nomination I am probably going to vote for him.  I'm not entirely convinced that he would bring real change to the system. But I think he is certainly a man of integrity who is willing to listen to both sides of an argument.

[unbreakable]

Well I can understand his point, and even agree, in that he feels there are fundamental problems with the electoral process.  But seeing how, in 2000, he was claiming there would be no difference whatsoever if Gore or Bush were elected... I just can't agree with that.  It seems more like a viewpoint which ignores everything except for the one issue he's focused on: yeah, the electoral system wouldn't have changed much under either, but it would be a completely different world today if GWB had never been president.

[th'FOOL]

Well I can understand his point, and even agree, in that he feels there are fundamental problems with the electoral process.  But seeing how, in 2000, he was claiming there would be no difference whatsoever if Gore or Bush were elected... I just can't agree with that.  It seems more like a viewpoint which ignores everything except for the one issue he's focused on: yeah, the electoral system wouldn't have changed much under either, but it would be a completely different world today if GWB had never been president.

Well, gosh, hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?  I would wager that Nader is probably thinking that he was wrong about that right about now, don't you?

[Eduardo X]

Well I can understand his point, and even agree, in that he feels there are fundamental problems with the electoral process.  But seeing how, in 2000, he was claiming there would be no difference whatsoever if Gore or Bush were elected... I just can't agree with that.  It seems more like a viewpoint which ignores everything except for the one issue he's focused on: yeah, the electoral system wouldn't have changed much under either, but it would be a completely different world today if GWB had never been president.

The world would be totally different if Gore weren't the most boring pushover in politics. How could he just let the election go like that?

[Brendan]

Well I can understand his point, and even agree, in that he feels there are fundamental problems with the electoral process.  But seeing how, in 2000, he was claiming there would be no difference whatsoever if Gore or Bush were elected... I just can't agree with that.  It seems more like a viewpoint which ignores everything except for the one issue he's focused on: yeah, the electoral system wouldn't have changed much under either, but it would be a completely different world today if GWB had never been president.

Well, gosh, hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?  I would wager that Nader is probably thinking that he was wrong about that right about now, don't you?

Uh, no.  Have you read anything at all about Nader?  He's an egomaniac.  He doesn't think he was wrong about anything.

[denoginizer]

Well I can understand his point, and even agree, in that he feels there are fundamental problems with the electoral process.  But seeing how, in 2000, he was claiming there would be no difference whatsoever if Gore or Bush were elected... I just can't agree with that.  It seems more like a viewpoint which ignores everything except for the one issue he's focused on: yeah, the electoral system wouldn't have changed much under either, but it would be a completely different world today if GWB had never been president.

The world would be totally different if Gore weren't the most boring pushover in politics. How could he just let the election go like that?

Because he lost.

[unbreakable]

Because he lost.

Lost, as in got more votes than the other guy?  Lost, as in had the Supreme Court select the winner?

[denoginizer]

Because he lost.

Lost, as in got more votes than the other guy?  Lost, as in had the Supreme Court select the winner?

Obviously under our current system getting more popular votes is irrelevant.  The merits of that system are another argument.   There have been other controversial elections through our history.  In all cases (Gore, Nixon, Andrew Jackson) the loser had the sense to realize that to challenge the result would undermine our electoral system. And did not push beyond reasonable boundaries.  Gore did the same. 

I like Gore.  I voted for him.  But he lost the election.

End of story.

[unbreakable]

No, not really.  There were piles of evidence of vote rigging, some of it was even on tape.

Burying your head in the sand is not the same thing as there being nothing to see.

[denoginizer]

.....and the broken record goes on spinning.

[unbreakable]

.....and the broken record goes on spinning.

Show me someone who doesn't care about federal elections being rigged, and I'll show you somebody who doesn't give two shits about their country.

[brettmcd]

.....and the broken record goes on spinning.

Show me someone who doesn't care about federal elections being rigged, and I'll show you somebody who doesn't give two shits about their country.

I do care about my country, just as much as you do, its just there isnt any that has been proven about your claims.   If all this proof existed and could be proven, it would have been in the courts already and shown, it hasnt, so I just see it as unprovable claims and rumors.

[th'FOOL]

Well I can understand his point, and even agree, in that he feels there are fundamental problems with the electoral process.  But seeing how, in 2000, he was claiming there would be no difference whatsoever if Gore or Bush were elected... I just can't agree with that.  It seems more like a viewpoint which ignores everything except for the one issue he's focused on: yeah, the electoral system wouldn't have changed much under either, but it would be a completely different world today if GWB had never been president.

Well, gosh, hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?  I would wager that Nader is probably thinking that he was wrong about that right about now, don't you?

Uh, no.  Have you read anything at all about Nader?  He's an egomaniac.  He doesn't think he was wrong about anything.

Saying that he doesn't think electing a democrat over a republican will make any difference isn't exactly saying that electing Gore over Bush (in hindsight) didn't make any difference.   I don't think anybody accurately predicted the negative impact Bush had on the country, but I argue that Gore as president would have been more of a non-impact than an overwhelmingly positive or negative impact.

[denoginizer]

.....and the broken record goes on spinning.

Show me someone who doesn't care about federal elections being rigged, and I'll show you somebody who doesn't give two shits about their country.

I do care about my country, just as much as you do, its just there isnt any that has been proven about your claims.   If all this proof existed and could be proven, it would have been in the courts already and shown, it hasnt, so I just see it as unprovable claims and rumors.

That's just Unbreakable though.  He never lets things like proof and common sense get in the way of a good right-wing conspiracy theory.

[unbreakable]

.....and the broken record goes on spinning.

Show me someone who doesn't care about federal elections being rigged, and I'll show you somebody who doesn't give two shits about their country.

I do care about my country, just as much as you do, its just there isnt any that has been proven about your claims.   If all this proof existed and could be proven, it would have been in the courts already and shown, it hasnt, so I just see it as unprovable claims and rumors.

That's just Unbreakable though.  He never lets things like proof and common sense get in the way of a good right-wing conspiracy theory.

Global Warming, Evolution, and vote rigging in 2000 and 2004 all have a few things in common.  First, they are facts... not opinions or theories.  The only thing "at issue" is, in the case of Global Warming and Evolution, the specifics of how they work.  Second, all three subjects are hated by those not participating in the "reality based community".  Third, anyone denying the existence of any of them is obviously a very seriously, and tragically, misinformed and ignorant person.

For a start, Riddle me this, Batman:  Why is it all those Diebold machines which were oh so accurate and oh so legitimate... are not certified as secure or accurate for the 2008 elections?

[denoginizer]

I have no arguments against the concepts of evolution and global warming.  And concerning the Diebold machines I agree that they were problematic and at times innaccurate. But inaccurate and biased are two different concepts.  I am certain that there was impropriety and inaccurate votes counts on both sides.  To suggest that 100% of the miscounts and errors went in favor of the Republican candidate is naive.  I know I have said this before, but in my county there were far more absentee ballots that I would call "questionable" in favor of John Kerry in 2004.  In the 2000 election I am sure there were many people in Florida who voted for Pat Buchanan but meant to vote for Al Gore. Probably enough to swing the state in Gore's favor.  But I think that was a combination of bad ballot design and alot of blind elderly voters.  Not a right wing conspiracy.  I also think that if Gore could have won his home state of Tennessee then Florida would have been irrelevant.

[unbreakable]

And concerning the Diebold machines I agree that they were problematic and at times innaccurate. But inaccurate and biased are two different concepts.  I am certain that there was impropriety and inaccurate votes counts on both sides.  To suggest that 100% of the miscounts and errors went in favor of the Republican candidate is naive.

No... it's accurate.  There wasn't a single instance where the errors in electronic voting did not benefit GWB.  There were many vote totals which were higher than the number of registered voters.  There were also a great many instance where not only did the election totals mysteriously (and conveniently) come out to a round number (like 35,000 or something), but as fortune would have it they had the same vote totals as the entries above and below it!  But no, that couldn't possibly be taken as somebody fraudulently editting vote totals on a spreadsheet.  That's unpossible!



Also, the independent recount totals of the Florida ballots gave a win to Gore in every scenario.  If they did the recount in selected districts as the Gore campaign requested, he would have won the state by a narrow margin.  If they had done a state-wide recount, he would have won by a large margin.  If they took out all the "hanging chads", he would have won.  If they had judged the ballots, he would have won.  The only scenario where Bush won Florida was if the Supreme Court blocked the recount which Gore had a legal right to demand done.

And hey, there's no reason to just take my word for it.  I would suggest you actually do a bit of research on the subject.  Amazon has a ton of books on the subject.  So does your public (damn that use of public funds!!!!) library.  There are plenty of films on the subject.  There are entire websites dedicated to the topic.

If you actually think the topic of rigging votes in a democracy is worth your time and energy, the truth is out there, Scully. 

I know I have said this before, but in my county there were far more absentee ballots that I would call "questionable" in favor of John Kerry in 2004.  In the 2000 election I am sure there were many people in Florida who voted for Pat Buchanan but meant to vote for Al Gore. Probably enough to swing the state in Gore's favor.  But I think that was a combination of bad ballot design and alot of blind elderly voters.  Not a right wing conspiracy.  I also think that if Gore could have won his home state of Tennessee then Florida would have been irrelevant.

So you think it's... MORE... accurate to suggest that thousands upon thousands of people made the exact same mistake?  That sounds pretty naive, but it certainly fits with the typical "Blame America First (tm)" kind of rhetoric we always hear from the Republican noise machine.

BTW, who gives a damn who won Tennessee?  I sure don't, and neither do people in 49 other states.  Let Tennessse tend to their own garden.

[denoginizer]

Also, the independent recount totals of the Florida ballots gave a win to Gore in every scenario.  If they did the recount in selected districts as the Gore campaign requested, he would have won the state by a narrow margin.  If they had done a state-wide recount, he would have won by a large margin.  If they took out all the "hanging chads", he would have won.  If they had judged the ballots, he would have won.  The only scenario where Bush won Florida was if the Supreme Court blocked the recount which Gore had a legal right to demand done.

Actually there are many recount scenarios in which either candidate wins.  Ironically the the recount asked for by Gore of 3 specific counties results in a Bush win.  However in an election that close (535 vote difference out of 5 million counted,) the loser will always have grounds for protest. 

And hey, there's no reason to just take my word for it.  I would suggest you actually do a bit of research on the subject.  Amazon has a ton of books on the subject.  So does your public (damn that use of public funds!!!!) library.  There are plenty of films on the subject.  There are entire websites dedicated to the topic.

I will certainly look into the issue as you suggest.  To be fair there were films and websites dedicated to the moon landings in the 60's being faked and 911 being a fraud. So you have to take these things with a grain of salt.  But I will do some investgating on election rigging and see what I can find.



Edit-  It occurs to me that you may think the moon landings were faked and 911 was a fraud.  If that is the case we'll have to save those arguments for another day. 

[Blackadar]

There's little doubt that the FL election had irregularities that likely resulted in the incorrect candidate (Bush) being awarded the victory.  All one has to do is look at the number of ballots thrown out by the various counties.  Another is the number of ballots thrown out by ethnic background (yes, this has been done).  In virtually every scenario, the heavily Democratic districts - especially those with a large black population - were thrown out at a rate around 5x the white districts.  These facts, in themselves, strongly suggest that Gore really won the popular vote.

Then a hand recount was asked for in 4 counties.  By an older FL law, the recount was supposed to be done within 7 days, but the counties could not accomplish this in such a short time frame.  All appealed to Katherine Harris for more time.  She rejected all appeals in a huge conflict-of-interest, essentially saying the deadline was more important than the right of a recount.  The rest is the legal battle, including probably one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. 

Simply put, if it comes down to this again, I'm taking up arms.  Perhaps a little Revolution is good, now and again.

[ATB]

Global Warming, Evolution, and vote rigging in 2000 and 2004

You forgot to mention something about hitler.

  First, they are facts... not opinions or theories. 

There are many people smarter than you or I will ever be who disagree.  Evolution is not provable, hence it is still called a theory.

Global warming is also not considered fact as the evidence is still being gathered. Let me rephrase- perhaps global warming is a fact, but whether or not humanity has anything to do with it is speculative at best.

The only thing "at issue" is, in the case of Global Warming and Evolution, the specifics of how they work.

 

Pretty big 'issue' there.  Also the only thing 'at issue' with cold fusion and faster than light travel is the specifcs of how they work.

Second, all three subjects are hated by those not participating in the "reality based community".

Those are the words of a hatemongering bigot.

Third, anyone denying the existence of any of them is obviously a very seriously, and tragically, misinformed and ignorant person.

One who is self-pious and egomanical too.

[unbreakable]

  First, they are facts... not opinions or theories. 

There are many people smarter than you or I will ever be who disagree.  Evolution is not provable, hence it is still called a theory.

Your statement proves you don't know what a theory is.  That evolution occurs is a fact, as much as the fact that gravitation occurs.  As for how it works... nobody has figured that out exactly.  That's why it's a theory, not because there's uncertainty over whether anything is actually happening.

Global warming is also not considered fact as the evidence is still being gathered. Let me rephrase- perhaps global warming is a fact, but whether or not humanity has anything to do with it is speculative at best.

Global Warming is already a fact.  The average global temperature is, without a doubt, higher.  You don't need to "gather data" for that... you can simply take a trip northward and see all the melting glaciers, the disappearance of permafrost, etc.

Why is it happening?  The science community has been in agreement for over a decade that humanly created pollutants are the primary cause.  The only dissent has been from disreputable scientists, often not even experts in an applicable field, who are receiving funds from polluters.

Again, that Global Warming is actually occurring is an observable fact.  There's absolutely no doubt that it is, unless you get your science news from partisan political hacks.

The only thing "at issue" is, in the case of Global Warming and Evolution, the specifics of how they work.

 

Pretty big 'issue' there.  Also the only thing 'at issue' with cold fusion and faster than light travel is the specifcs of how they work.

No, because cold fusion has not been observed to work in peer reviewed studies (unlike both evolution and global warming, which are easily observable, and have a great deal of historical evidence to back it up).

And FTL travel violates the General Theory of Relativity.  Not only that, but it has never been observed.

Got any other talking points you would like disproved?

Second, all three subjects are hated by those not participating in the "reality based community".

Those are the words of a hatemongering bigot.

Wow... doesn't that violate the Code of Conduct?

BTW, I don't see how saying that people who deny things that are true are ignorant and uninformed is either hate mongering or bigoted.  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.  Sorry, but that's just how it works.

Third, anyone denying the existence of any of them is obviously a very seriously, and tragically, misinformed and ignorant person.

One who is self-pious and egomanical too.

No, simply somebody participating in the reality based community.  If you recall, it wasn't "my side" which coined that term... it was yours.

If you ever decide to come back to reality, ATB, it will always be here waiting for you.  Always.  Forever, and ever, and ever.

[ATB]

  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.  Sorry, but that's just how it works.

EVERYONE on this board is aware of the irony of this statement except you.

[Brendan]

Evolution is not provable, hence it is still called a theory.

Uh, so, please don't do this.  This is a ridiculous line of reasoning and has been addressed a million times by scientists.  This is akin to you denying that gravity exists.

[unbreakable]

  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.  Sorry, but that's just how it works.

EVERYONE on this board is aware of the irony of this statement except you.

Care to make a poll on that... or is that another one of your "theories"?

[denoginizer]

  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.  Sorry, but that's just how it works.

EVERYONE on this board is aware of the irony of this statement except you.

Care to make a poll on that... or is that another one of your "theories"?

Where do I vote?   

[warning]

[unbreakable]

I'm just always sceptical when somebody starts speaking for "everyone else".  Sure, it makes someone sound cool and autoritative and everything, but it also makes them sound like some egomaniac who thinks everyone agrees with them... just because they said it.  Which can never apply to me, because I don't give two shits about what anyone else believes, especially anonymous dudes on teh intarweb: I'm just talking, not seeking converts to my personality cult.

It's also a fallacy called "Appeal to Popularity": just because large groups of people believe things doesn't make them true.  As I'm so fond of pointing out, the fact that so many people believed with complete and absolute certainty that the world was flat did very little to make the world any flatter.

[unbreakable]

[Kevin Grey]

Guys, keep the thread focused on opinions of the issues being discussed rather than judgments of the posters' opinions on these issues.

ie- quit making it personal.

[DarkEL]

Guys, keep the thread focused on opinions of the issues being discussed rather than judgments of the posters' opinions on these issues.

ie- quit making it personal.

You're just saying that because you don't like us.

[Blackadar]

There's little doubt that the FL election had irregularities that likely resulted in the incorrect candidate (Bush) being awarded the victory.  All one has to do is look at the number of ballots thrown out by the various counties.  Another is the number of ballots thrown out by ethnic background (yes, this has been done).  In virtually every scenario, the heavily Democratic districts - especially those with a large black population - were thrown out at a rate around 5x the white districts.  These facts, in themselves, strongly suggest that Gore really won the popular vote.

Then a hand recount was asked for in 4 counties.  By an older FL law, the recount was supposed to be done within 7 days, but the counties could not accomplish this in such a short time frame.  All appealed to Katherine Harris for more time.  She rejected all appeals in a huge conflict-of-interest, essentially saying the deadline was more important than the right of a recount.  The rest is the legal battle, including probably one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. 

Simply put, if it comes down to this again, I'm taking up arms.  Perhaps a little Revolution is good, now and again.

What's really said is that given the cacophony, legitimate posts go unanswered.  The FL elections were improper, the wrong candidate won and we've paid the price for the last 8 years and we'll be paying it for a long time coming.

And ATB, "those are the words of a hatemongering bigot" is out of line.  Come on, you can do better than that.