kallend 2,146 #51 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteA democratic method that eliminates the obsolete Electoral College and uses the expressed will of the people in the country as a whole would have given Gore the win. Constitutional comprehension fail. The states elect the President, not the people. The various states could do it by a coin toss (assuming the individual state constitutions/laws allowed it) and it would be perfectly legal. Why don't you read the f'ing thread instead of hitting "post" without thinking?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #52 December 28, 2008 QuoteNope, not seeing the word "democratic" in there - probably because the United States is a representative republic and not a democracy. Ain't it awful ironic...that certain people keep trying to spread something around to other countries... that we ourselves do not even have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteA democratic method that eliminates the obsolete Electoral College and uses the expressed will of the people in the country as a whole would have given Gore the win. Constitutional comprehension fail. The states elect the President, not the people. The various states could do it by a coin toss (assuming the individual state constitutions/laws allowed it) and it would be perfectly legal. Why don't you read the f'ing thread instead of hitting "post" without thinking? Want a tissue? It's not MY fault you made a bullshit post and got called on it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #54 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFlorida was the deciding state? I will agree that obviously the other states had something to due with it....... but, since the final out come was 271- 266. I think it is fair to look at that state of florida results as very questionable. Funny how their system became all screwed up in 2000 with the Bush boys on the loose. No, you can say that about every state where the results were essentially a dead heat. Florida has been notoriously inept at running a clean election of late, but much of the problem exists everywhere, but is only exposed in a tight election. Though the SCOTUS rubs many the wrong way, it didn't change the result. No recount under any method would have given Gore the win. . A democratic method that eliminates the obsolete Electoral College and uses the expressed will of the people in the country as a whole would have given Gore the win. Yes, but that is not how our system works. We have an electoral college, any they chose Bush. Sore loser #4 Interesting signature, Mr. Sore Loser #4 Interesting spin, Mr. Sore Loser #1. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3383385#3383385 My sig line says "Canopy collisions kill; avoid having one." Can't you read? By the way, why are you so afraid to reveal your identity? Were you previously banned and back in another guise?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #55 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA democratic method that eliminates the obsolete Electoral College and uses the expressed will of the people in the country as a whole would have given Gore the win. Constitutional comprehension fail. The states elect the President, not the people. The various states could do it by a coin toss (assuming the individual state constitutions/laws allowed it) and it would be perfectly legal. Why don't you read the f'ing thread instead of hitting "post" without thinking? Want a tissue? It's not MY fault you made a bullshit post and got called on it. INCORRECT. The post was a direct comment on the nature of US electoral process. HAD we a democratic process instead of a clearly undemocratic one, Gore WOULD have been elected in 2000.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA democratic method that eliminates the obsolete Electoral College and uses the expressed will of the people in the country as a whole would have given Gore the win. Constitutional comprehension fail. The states elect the President, not the people. The various states could do it by a coin toss (assuming the individual state constitutions/laws allowed it) and it would be perfectly legal. Why don't you read the f'ing thread instead of hitting "post" without thinking? Want a tissue? It's not MY fault you made a bullshit post and got called on it. INCORRECT. The post was a direct comment on the nature of US electoral process. HAD we a democratic process instead of a clearly undemocratic one, Gore WOULD have been elected in 2000. Yes, and I provided proof that the 'will of the people' does not elect the President. I'm sure you had a point somewhere in here other than sour grapes because your guy didn't win?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #57 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteNope, not seeing the word "democratic" in there - probably because the United States is a representative republic and not a democracy. Ain't it awful ironic...that certain people keep trying to spread something around to other countries... that we ourselves do not even have. Isn't it, though? QuoteApril 15, 1999--Bill Clinton, President of the United States: Realistically, it will require a democratic transition in Serbia, for the region's democracies will never be safe with a belligerent tyranny in their midsts. 46 QuoteApril 19, 1999--Samuel Berger, National Security Adviser: The President said [it] is hard to imagine a stable Balkans, stable Southeastern Europe without a truly democratic Serbia. 47 QuoteApril 20, 1999--Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State: We believe that the Serb people would be better served by having a democratically-elected government that represents their values. 48Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #58 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFlorida was the deciding state? I will agree that obviously the other states had something to due with it....... but, since the final out come was 271- 266. I think it is fair to look at that state of florida results as very questionable. Funny how their system became all screwed up in 2000 with the Bush boys on the loose. No, you can say that about every state where the results were essentially a dead heat. Florida has been notoriously inept at running a clean election of late, but much of the problem exists everywhere, but is only exposed in a tight election. Though the SCOTUS rubs many the wrong way, it didn't change the result. No recount under any method would have given Gore the win. . A democratic method that eliminates the obsolete Electoral College and uses the expressed will of the people in the country as a whole would have given Gore the win. Yes, but that is not how our system works. We have an electoral college, any they chose Bush. Sore loser #4 Interesting signature, Mr. Sore Loser #4 Interesting spin, Mr. Sore Loser #1. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3383385#3383385 My sig line says "Canopy collisions kill; avoid having one." Can't you read? By the way, why are you so afraid to reveal your identity? Were you previously banned and back in another guise? If you are accusing me of being illiterate, then you must also look in a mirror. When I placed the words "Sore loser #4" in my post they are nowhere near where a sigline would be. Pay attention. And, since you must know, I do not reveal my identity as a favor to my girlfriend, who was stalked and threatened by a person on an internet forum that she participated in.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 December 28, 2008 Quote INCORRECT. The post was a direct comment on the nature of US electoral process. HAD we a democratic process instead of a clearly undemocratic one, Gore WOULD have been elected in 2000. False. It's rare for you to make absolute statements, ones you can't wiggle out of, but you do here. Had we altered the rules after the votes were cast, Gore would have won. Interesting way to run an election process, though. Had we altered the rules well in advance of the election, voter turnout in well decided states would have been altered dramatically. Campaigning in well decided states would have been considerably greater. Gore's entire margin of victory was captured in CA, a state that Bush ignored entirely (and continued to ignore in 8 years in office). The state voted for the GOP candidate almost continuously until Clinton, and thanks in part to Bush, will likely never vote GOP again. Switch to popular vote, and this changes again. It's worth noting that Bush lead in polling just before the election. And for reasons discussed many times here, lots of reasons to prefer the status quo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 December 28, 2008 Quote And would have spared the country from the Kennedy presidency in 1960. Just think what the world would look like if Nixon had bombed the hell out of Hanoi in 1962 or Kissenger was there to deal with the Bay of Pigs. Given the way that Kennedy/LBJ/McNamera amped up the Cold War in response to USSR overtures, how can you presume that Nixon would have been worse? Is Nixon's war in Cambodia that much worse than LBJ's fabricated Tonkin Incident? Both of them seemed equally crazy to me, just on different sides of the aisle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #61 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuote In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. If The People want decency in government, it's up to Them to put it there, and it's up to Them to keep it there. The Electoral College system is NOT democracy. Excuse me, but I'll be the pedant here, thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #62 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuote And would have spared the country from the Kennedy presidency in 1960. Just think what the world would look like if Nixon had bombed the hell out of Hanoi in 1962 or Kissenger was there to deal with the Bay of Pigs. Given the way that Kennedy/LBJ/McNamera amped up the Cold War in response to USSR overtures, how can you presume that Nixon would have been worse? Is Nixon's war in Cambodia that much worse than LBJ's fabricated Tonkin Incident? Both of them seemed equally crazy to me, just on different sides of the aisle. I made no such presumption. I consider Nixon to be one of the best foreign policy presidents of the twentieth century. The measured response doctrine of McNamara was not one believed in by Kissinger or Nixon. Add that to Eisenhower's often stated belief that a protracted land war in Asia was to be avoided at (almost) all costs, we can surmise that Nixon/Kissinger would have either declined to increase the US's presence in Viet Nam, or gone in full force a lot earlier than Johnson eventually did. Given either of those possibilities I think the possibilities in Cambodia were too far down the alternate time line to really consider. As for Cuba I think a similar non action/massive response choice would have resulted; either they would not have made the play, or they would have supported it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #63 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote And would have spared the country from the Kennedy presidency in 1960. Just think what the world would look like if Nixon had bombed the hell out of Hanoi in 1962 or Kissenger was there to deal with the Bay of Pigs. Given the way that Kennedy/LBJ/McNamera amped up the Cold War in response to USSR overtures, how can you presume that Nixon would have been worse? Is Nixon's war in Cambodia that much worse than LBJ's fabricated Tonkin Incident? Both of them seemed equally crazy to me, just on different sides of the aisle. I made no such presumption. I consider Nixon to be one of the best foreign policy presidents of the twentieth century. Interesting - the way you phrased it, I read that you considered the alternative of Nixon in 1960 to be worse, not better. I wonder if things would have been radically different, or just slightly different over the 60s and 70s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #64 December 28, 2008 Quote Quote INCORRECT. The post was a direct comment on the nature of US electoral process. HAD we a democratic process instead of a clearly undemocratic one, Gore WOULD have been elected in 2000. False. It's rare for you to make absolute statements, ones you can't wiggle out of, but you do here. I repeat, had there been a democratic process instead of an archaic one, Gore would have won: George W. Bush 50,456,002 47.87% Al Gore 50,999,897 48.38% ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #65 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA democratic method that eliminates the obsolete Electoral College and uses the expressed will of the people in the country as a whole would have given Gore the win. Constitutional comprehension fail. The states elect the President, not the people. The various states could do it by a coin toss (assuming the individual state constitutions/laws allowed it) and it would be perfectly legal. Why don't you read the f'ing thread instead of hitting "post" without thinking? Want a tissue? It's not MY fault you made a bullshit post and got called on it. INCORRECT. The post was a direct comment on the nature of US electoral process. HAD we a democratic process instead of a clearly undemocratic one, Gore WOULD have been elected in 2000. Yes, and I provided proof that the 'will of the people' does not elect the President. I'm sure you had a point somewhere in here other than sour grapes because your guy didn't win? The point is that a democratic process would have kept Bush out of the White House and we would all have been A LOT BETTER OFF.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #66 December 28, 2008 Quote Interesting - the way you phrased it, I read that you considered the alternative of Nixon in 1960 to be worse, not better. QuoteAnd would have spared the country from the Kennedy presidency in 1960. Really? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #67 December 28, 2008 QuoteQuote A democratic method that eliminates the obsolete Electoral College and uses the expressed will of the people in the country as a whole would have given Gore the win. And would have spared the country from the Kennedy presidency in 1960... . Popular vote 1960: Kennedy 34,220,984 Nixon 34,108,157 Kennedy won it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #68 December 28, 2008 QuoteAnd would have spared the country from the Kennedy presidency in 1960. Just think what the world would look like if Nixon had bombed the hell out of Hanoi in 1962 or Kissenger was there to deal with the Bay of Pigs. Am i miss-reading your post? Kennedy won the popular vote.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #69 December 28, 2008 Quote I repeat, had there been a democratic process instead of an archaic one, Gore would have won: George W. Bush 50,456,002 47.87% Al Gore 50,999,897 48.38% When a government changes the election rules after the vote to keep the current regime in charge, we call it something other than a democratic process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #70 December 28, 2008 Quote Quote I repeat, had there been a democratic process instead of an archaic one, Gore would have won: George W. Bush 50,456,002 47.87% Al Gore 50,999,897 48.38% When a government changes the election rules after the vote to keep the current regime in charge, we call it something other than a democratic process. So keeping an undemocratic process in place is democratic? Newspeak is SO 1984.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #71 December 29, 2008 Quote In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, not seeing the word "democratic" in there - probably because the United States is a representative republic and not a democracy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ain't it awful ironic...that certain people keep trying to spread something around to other countries... that we ourselves do not even have. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't it, though? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 15, 1999--Bill Clinton, President of the United States: Realistically, it will require a democratic transition in Serbia, for the region's democracies will never be safe with a belligerent tyranny in their midsts. 46 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 19, 1999--Samuel Berger, National Security Adviser: The President said [it] is hard to imagine a stable Balkans, stable Southeastern Europe without a truly democratic Serbia. 47 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 20, 1999--Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State: We believe that the Serb people would be better served by having a democratically-elected government that represents their values. 48 Interesting what happens when you have more than a 2 digit IQ and do NOT take your country to a war in which thousands of your fellow Americans die for YOUR being a HAWK.. but you were too fucking CHICKEN to go yourself. But in your world its FAR more important of a crime to get a blow jobAnd just to stave off your bullshit claim that his IQ is 125.. it may have been once.. before he was a cokehead.. and a drunk for so many years.... there is a price to be paid for substance abuse. His habit of putting his foot in his mouth is a clue, diminished brain function. It seems it has been the American people who are paying the price for his inability to have his brain cells transmit information properly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #72 December 29, 2008 Quote...its FAR more important of a crime to get a blow job If you are refering to the crime for which Bill clinton was impeached, the actual crime was for lying to a grand jury. The last I checked, perjury was a pretty serious crime. Do you have any evidence that Bush was a chicken?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #73 December 29, 2008 Quote If you are refering to the crime for which Bill clinton was impeached, the actual crime was for lying to a grand jury. The last I checked, perjury was a pretty serious crime. Do you have any evidence that Bush was a chicken? To the Religious hypocrites that support the far right it sure is...I guess what you dont get should be prohibited for everyone elseActions speak louder than all of your words to the contrary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #74 December 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote INCORRECT. The post was a direct comment on the nature of US electoral process. HAD we a democratic process instead of a clearly undemocratic one, Gore WOULD have been elected in 2000. False. It's rare for you to make absolute statements, ones you can't wiggle out of, but you do here. I repeat, had there been a democratic process instead of an archaic one, Gore would have won: George W. Bush 50,456,002 47.87% Al Gore 50,999,897 48.38% Only if you assume that the candidates would have campaigned in exactly the same manner under a truly democratic system as they did under our electoral college system, an assumption that would be wrong.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #75 December 29, 2008 QuoteDo you have any evidence that Bush was a chicken? If he really wanted to serve his country, he could have at least joined the Regular service. Not knocking the national guard really, but playing weekend warrior doesnt cut it for some of us. That being said. I do respect the National Guard, but seems like the cheap way to go for a future president.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
