Canadian Who Called Bush 'Moron' Quits - Page 3

Giancarlo · November 29, 2002, 22:27

I laughed heavily when I heard about this... a moron actually tried calling Bush a "moron"? What a wrong thing to say...

And are people here still discussing whether Bush won the 2000 election or not? Well 2002 is evidence that reaffirmed him to office. Poor liberals can't admit that they got smashed in those elections.

Imran Siddiqui · November 29, 2002, 23:13

Quote:

In both elections Clintn had a plurality (more votes than any other candidate) In fact, I had thought he had a genuine majority in 1996.

No, Clinton never had a majority. In fact Bush in 2000 had more votes than Clinton did in any of his elections.

Theben · November 30, 2002, 01:42

If by "never had a majority" you mean a majority of eligible voters, then you'd be correct.

If you're referring to total votes cast then Clinton won with a considerable margin.

"Well 2002 is evidence that reaffirmed him to office. Poor liberals can't admit that they got smashed in those elections."

More like proof that either a) the dems are spending too much time kissing Dubya's ass 'cuz of the war, or b) the electorate realizes the dems have no clear idea what they're doing, or c) a little of both. Consider that most of the "up in the air" elections (aka insufficiently gerrymandered) were won by the slimmest of margins, the only thing to be said is that the Repubs come off looking slightly less pathetic than the dems.

As to the 2000 elections, I realize that if the situation was reversed, it would be the repubs hollering now 'til 2100 and the dems chuckling to themselves, but I would hope that even you smug conservatives would be concerned about the lack of democratic action involved in this election (indeed, many conservatives are- mostly libertarians) and what it might foretell for the future of this country.

Faboba · November 30, 2002, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

Both sides sought to get maximum advantage in order to secure Florida.

Yes but only one side misused their power as a state governor to kick legitimate voters from pro-democrat interest groups off the election lists and had overseas ballots accepted to such a degree as to give them a victory over their opponent.

* If the ballots which the Times had highlighted had not been counted then the true count would have gone by 7 votes to Gore.

* 8000 or so people were taken off the ballot lists which should not have been. Most of these were from traditionally pro-democrat groups. Who knows how they would have voted but the point remains if trends are accurate the majority would have voted for Gore.

* Finally, but much more innocently, apparently 3000-odd elderly Jewish residents mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan. No... I don't see how that could happen by chance nor do I believe that it was anything to do with the Bush brothers but it's worth a mention all the same.

Faboba · November 30, 2002, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

Seeing there was so much doubt and the results so close you should have settled it by trial by combat. Medieval maybe, entertaining for sure. Definitely would have ended this debate.

I agree! Still... combat between a monkey and a tree. Not much of a fight, is it?

Imran Siddiqui · November 30, 2002, 02:20

Quote:

If by "never had a majority" you mean a majority of eligible voters, then you'd be correct.

If you're referring to total votes cast then Clinton won with a considerable margin.

No, I mean a majority of votes cast. Clinton only had a plurality in both elections. He never recieved 50% of the vote, or even 48% (which both Bush and Gore got). Third Parties got more vote under Clinton than in 2000.

Faboba · November 30, 2002, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually looking at the 2002 election, I think a majority of people like Bush. Especially considering that everywhere Bush went the Republican got AT LEAST a 3 point bump, and it helped a lot of candidates win, especially here in Georgia and next door in South Carolina.

You're at 'war'... the people love a war.

Quote:

Anything that comes from Texas is tainted!!

So lets see... the list which has names to be illegally taken from the ballot comes from a company ( you say ) which just happens to come from Texas which just happens to be governed by one of the presidential candidates who just happens to be the brother of the man who's office will have to approve this list before it is used ( and did ). That's one big-ass coincidence there... isn't it?

Quote:

Give me a cite. And secondly, absentee ballots are counted by the county... yep, the same people that did the recounts.

Unsurprisingly I don't have a copy of the New York Times in front of me as I'm not a US resident. Are you going to take marks off me for using a secondary source?

Quote:

So you don't know the difference between the holding and dicta. Not suprising.

No, you're quite right. I have no idea what the hell you're gibbering on about but if I understood what you were saying correctly you claimed that the recounts were stopped because they were not being conducted in the same manner in each region of Florida. What I am saying is that the quote comes from one of the Supreme Court Judges and includes him stating ( whatever our own interpretations of his meaning may be ) that the counts were stopped to protect the legitimacy of the original Presidential election results.

Imran Siddiqui · November 30, 2002, 02:45

Quote:

So lets see... the list which has names to be illegally taken from the ballot comes from a company ( you say ) which just happens to come from Texas which just happens to be governed by one of the presidential candidates who just happens to be the brother of the man who's office will have to approve this list before it is used ( and did ). That's one big-ass coincidence there... isn't it?

Call Mulder and Scully!

Quote:

Unsurprisingly I don't have a copy of the New York Times in front of me as I'm not a US resident. Are you going to take marks off me for using a secondary source?

They have a website. And if it was true, surely other sites would have it online, no?

Quote:

What I am saying is that the quote comes from one of the Supreme Court Judges and includes him stating ( whatever our own interpretations of his meaning may be ) that the counts were stopped to protect the legitimacy of the original Presidential election results.

Dicta is that stuff in the opinion that is the opinion of the Justice and is not part of the holding. Holding was that it violated the 14th Amendment, the dicta was Scalia's opinion that it would illegitmize the results. The other justices that voted for the opinion don't nescessarily agree with dicta. They only agree with the ruling.

Theben · November 30, 2002, 03:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, I mean a majority of votes cast. Clinton only had a plurality in both elections. He never recieved 50% of the vote, or even 48% (which both Bush and Gore got). Third Parties got more vote under Clinton than in 2000.

This is a different arguement than Bush Jr. vs. Gore. Clinton still got more votes than the next guy, whereas the 2000 question asks who really received the most votes. And quite frankly it's not one you want to make, as it can only weaken your arguement. Faboba has some of the facts but hasn't put together a cohesive arguement, and the burden of proof is on his side.

Theben · November 30, 2002, 03:13

FE, he could have said that the "private non-partisan company" had an error margin of approx. 15% in that tally, which is pretty high considering how little Dubya took the state by.

notyoueither · November 30, 2002, 05:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba

Did I say any of that ****?

No. You said...

Quote:

It still came from Texas.

That's enough paranoia for me.

Imran Siddiqui · November 30, 2002, 18:27

Quote:

This is a different arguement than Bush Jr. vs. Gore. Clinton still got more votes than the next guy, whereas the 2000 question asks who really received the most votes.

Well we were discussing if Clinton got a majority of votes. NO, he didn't. All I said is that Bush got more of the vote than Clinton ever did, and that is the truth.