I think we should all reword our wording so that we do not confuse our international friends.
Bush wasn't elected in the first place so "re-elected" is somehwhat of a misnomer. A more aptly worded question would be "Will Bush get a second term?"
Remember friends, the only people he was elected by was with a majority in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
I think we should all reword our wording so that we do not confuse our international friends.
Bush wasn't elected in the first place so "re-elected" is somehwhat of a misnomer. A more aptly worded question would be "Will Bush get a second term?"
Remember friends, the only people he was elected by was with a majority in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
I think we should all reword our wording so that we do not confuse our international friends.
Bush wasn't elected in the first place so "re-elected" is somehwhat of a misnomer. A more aptly worded question would be "Will Bush get a second term?"
Remember friends, the only people he was elected by was with a majority in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
7-2 decision don't you mean? The 5-4 decision was about the time frame. 7-2 decision said you cannot only count selected ballots from selected counties while selectively throwing out military ballots.
That was what doomed Gore, not the decision about how long it would take to do this recount.
There will be no easy election either way in 2004. The country right now is pretty much 45% Democrats and 45% Republicans, with a few percent in the middle who will vote for a third party and a couple thousand people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan who will determine the next president.
Democrats already have 100 or so electoral votes wrapped up with NY and CA and the northeast without lifting a finger, and Republicans already have about the same from the Bible belt and the West.
I don't know if I would pocket California just yet. It has been a Democratic lock for the last 3 elections but it was Republican for the three prior to that.
The 35 billion dollar hole in our budget has put Davis at all time lows, in fact he may be recalled.
The party in power typically suffers when things are bad while nationwide things are so-so, in California things are very bad budget-wise and the Dems hold both houses and the entire executive branch. There really is only one party to toss out.
i think this is obvious... although it hasnt been said... blacks did not elect these republicans, it is a shameful and somewhat sad assumption that they did... white republicans elected these black republicans to office...
in my home town there is a black police chief, the city is in the southeast and is mostly white, though the black population is significant, ie 40% if not higher... why did this man get elected? because both the whites and the blacks voted for the democrat in a strongly democratic city...
its complete bullshit that if you have black republican politicians that it follows exactly that black voters elected them... i would not vote for a white person if i agreed more strongly with say an indian, why should that be true of blacks...
this is just george will (and other republicans) spouting the demise of the two party system, because god knows that everything would be better if everyone agreed on everything...
Got it, so when whites wouldn't elect blacks to office that was.... bad....
And now when white will elect blacks to office that is.... bad....
That was what doomed Gore, not the decision about how long it would take to do this recount.
Long before the Supreme Court decided Gore asked for all the counties to be counted. It's not his fault Florida law required a candidate to ask for specific counties that were problematic. Gore just asked for what the laws required him to ask.
Got it, so when whites wouldn't elect blacks to office that was.... bad....
And now when white will elect blacks to office that is.... bad....
Glad to see you are so clear on that.
Nick
Wait let me catch my breath.........
There! Listen nothing and I repeat nothing will matter by 2004 except the economy. If Bush's plans don't bring us out of this recession ( and even Alan Greenspan shakes his head at them ) he will be a dead duck. That's it in a nutshell. Further more it's been proven before. Don't believe me? Just keep watching. Bush knows this that's why he hasn't gone after anyone else militarily speaking. As someone else here quoted " It's the economy stupid! "
Long before the Supreme Court decided Gore asked for all the counties to be counted. It's not his fault Florida law required a candidate to ask for specific counties that were problematic. Gore just asked for what the laws required him to ask.
There was a statewide count and recount. All done my machine. Gore the requested selective counties have their "undervotes" hand recounted. Hence the "dimpled chads" and other nonsense.
not to be argumentative about gore getting the shaft in florida, but i have a problem feeling sorry for him when he didn't even carry his own state.
nothing else would matter, nader, electoral votes, chads, distancing himself from his president, if he would have won tennessee.
After Clinton's big mistake nothing could have saved him. I knew that before the election. You can probably blame that for Tennessee. It's to bad our values are based on appearence and public speaking ( which really don't have anything to do with the job. Under that definition Bob Barker would make a good president ). It was really close. No electoral college and he would have won.
yes, it's weird though. you look at a map of the US on a county by county basis, and it was overwhelmingly Bush. until you got to big cities, where Gore won almost every single one.
there's a weird division between the large city folks and small town folks.
(although i guess it's not weird when you get right down to it)
grow up please. How is it you speak of an argument as being flawed yet you use rude language towards trumptman?
I think you misread the argument myself and when you don't like "how you read the issue argued" you lose all self control.
come back in 5 years when you may have matured.
Fellowship
Fellows
actually no, i made no arguments one way or another in terms of whether electing people of other races is favorable or not (i actually stated quite the inverse, that one should always elect those that represent your issues best, in my example of electing an indian) so trumpetman assigned me an argument i did not make and thus he IS an asshole, particularly since its an argument i expressly did not make and one that offends my sensibilities deeply, so he hit a nerve and i responded, but at least i can admit that, but i doubt he will never admit he assigned an argument to me in a fashion that was both insulting and irrelevent...
maturity is a question of time and place, and i firmly believed it needed to be pointed out that TRUMPTMAN IS AN ASSHOLE.
Billybobsky? Where did I say blacks elected these guys? AHAHA
OK so I implied it, but is that really wrong? Look at the politics of activism. Speech is so blantantly censored when the mouths speaking it are the wrong color (in both directions, when we're dealing with white and black, add brown, yellow, and red and it gets weirder still, so let's just use black and white.) America is rife with the sentiment "We need one of our own."
So this is not restricted to who elects blacks (a conclusion you drew for yourself), but why and where blacks choose to run. Think about the candidates themselves. There must be a sufficient pool of blacks for whom it makes sense to be republican if there is a new influx of black candidates throughout the party.
For the longest time we looked at the democrats as the only party for black candidates, blacks themselves would look at any republican black as an "Uncle Tom" depending on whereabouts in the country. If there are MORE black republicans coming to the fore, it's also reasonable to think that there are more black republicans in their various districts. At least moreso than in previous years. Whites might still elect them (ie make up the majority of their votes,) but there's a lot more color in that support base than there used to be, color that sees the world in a stereotypically "whiter" way perhaps -- if we want to paint black and white into money lines.
What is interesting about all this is that you have applied a very "democrat" assumption to a logistical inquiry and then criticised me for it. Cute, but not really my fault, I merely implied that Republicans would be happy to catch some of those other kinds of racist votes, along with the idea that more blacks may like republicans (regardless of reason) than many democrats would like to admit.
[political disclaimer mode] As with most things, I am a political agnostic as well [/disclaimer mode off]
Why all this fuss over whether or not Bush can get reelected?
NEWSFLASH: It doesn't matter. It really doesn't. Both parties are two sides of the same coin. They have the same goals, motivations, and interests. It truly doesn't matter who gets elected.
NEWSFLASH: It doesn't matter. It really doesn't. Both parties are two sides of the same coin. They have the same goals, motivations, and interests. It truly doesn't matter who gets elected.
I couldn't disagree with you more. From where I am, there is a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. It may seem like they aren't very different at election time, but that's due to the two-party system of the US, where to win, you must pander to the moderates and move to the center. Their actions once in office show their true intentions and reveal the big differences.
If Gore was president today:
1. We would be in Kyoto.
2. CAFE standards would be higher.
3. The Patriot act would be non-existent since Ascroft wouldn't be in power.
4. No cruel and unnecessary war with Iraq. Tell those dead Iraqi civilians there's no difference.
5. We'd have the beginnings of universal health care with presciption drug coverage.
6. It's likely the Democrats would still control the senate.
Comments
Bush wasn't elected in the first place so "re-elected" is somehwhat of a misnomer. A more aptly worded question would be "Will Bush get a second term?"
Remember friends, the only people he was elected by was with a majority in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
Originally posted by Existence
I think we should all reword our wording so that we do not confuse our international friends.
Bush wasn't elected in the first place so "re-elected" is somehwhat of a misnomer. A more aptly worded question would be "Will Bush get a second term?"
Remember friends, the only people he was elected by was with a majority in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
Closest. "Election." Ever!
Originally posted by Existence
I think we should all reword our wording so that we do not confuse our international friends.
Bush wasn't elected in the first place so "re-elected" is somehwhat of a misnomer. A more aptly worded question would be "Will Bush get a second term?"
Remember friends, the only people he was elected by was with a majority in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
7-2 decision don't you mean? The 5-4 decision was about the time frame. 7-2 decision said you cannot only count selected ballots from selected counties while selectively throwing out military ballots.
That was what doomed Gore, not the decision about how long it would take to do this recount.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
There will be no easy election either way in 2004. The country right now is pretty much 45% Democrats and 45% Republicans, with a few percent in the middle who will vote for a third party and a couple thousand people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan who will determine the next president.
Democrats already have 100 or so electoral votes wrapped up with NY and CA and the northeast without lifting a finger, and Republicans already have about the same from the Bible belt and the West.
I don't know if I would pocket California just yet. It has been a Democratic lock for the last 3 elections but it was Republican for the three prior to that.
The 35 billion dollar hole in our budget has put Davis at all time lows, in fact he may be recalled.
The party in power typically suffers when things are bad while nationwide things are so-so, in California things are very bad budget-wise and the Dems hold both houses and the entire executive branch. There really is only one party to toss out.
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
i think this is obvious... although it hasnt been said... blacks did not elect these republicans, it is a shameful and somewhat sad assumption that they did... white republicans elected these black republicans to office...
in my home town there is a black police chief, the city is in the southeast and is mostly white, though the black population is significant, ie 40% if not higher... why did this man get elected? because both the whites and the blacks voted for the democrat in a strongly democratic city...
its complete bullshit that if you have black republican politicians that it follows exactly that black voters elected them... i would not vote for a white person if i agreed more strongly with say an indian, why should that be true of blacks...
this is just george will (and other republicans) spouting the demise of the two party system, because god knows that everything would be better if everyone agreed on everything...
Got it, so when whites wouldn't elect blacks to office that was.... bad....
And now when white will elect blacks to office that is.... bad....
Glad to see you are so clear on that.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
That was what doomed Gore, not the decision about how long it would take to do this recount.
Long before the Supreme Court decided Gore asked for all the counties to be counted. It's not his fault Florida law required a candidate to ask for specific counties that were problematic. Gore just asked for what the laws required him to ask.
Originally posted by trumptman
Got it, so when whites wouldn't elect blacks to office that was.... bad....
And now when white will elect blacks to office that is.... bad....
Glad to see you are so clear on that.
Nick
Wait let me catch my breath.........
There! Listen nothing and I repeat nothing will matter by 2004 except the economy. If Bush's plans don't bring us out of this recession ( and even Alan Greenspan shakes his head at them ) he will be a dead duck. That's it in a nutshell. Further more it's been proven before. Don't believe me? Just keep watching. Bush knows this that's why he hasn't gone after anyone else militarily speaking. As someone else here quoted " It's the economy stupid! "
nothing else would matter, nader, electoral votes, chads, distancing himself from his president, if he would have won tennessee.
Originally posted by bunge
Long before the Supreme Court decided Gore asked for all the counties to be counted. It's not his fault Florida law required a candidate to ask for specific counties that were problematic. Gore just asked for what the laws required him to ask.
There was a statewide count and recount. All done my machine. Gore the requested selective counties have their "undervotes" hand recounted. Hence the "dimpled chads" and other nonsense.
Nick
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
not to be argumentative about gore getting the shaft in florida, but i have a problem feeling sorry for him when he didn't even carry his own state.
nothing else would matter, nader, electoral votes, chads, distancing himself from his president, if he would have won tennessee.
After Clinton's big mistake nothing could have saved him. I knew that before the election. You can probably blame that for Tennessee. It's to bad our values are based on appearence and public speaking ( which really don't have anything to do with the job. Under that definition Bob Barker would make a good president ). It was really close. No electoral college and he would have won.
No electoral college and he would have won.
yes, it's weird though. you look at a map of the US on a county by county basis, and it was overwhelmingly Bush. until you got to big cities, where Gore won almost every single one.
there's a weird division between the large city folks and small town folks.
(although i guess it's not weird when you get right down to it)
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
...i have a problem feeling sorry for him when he didn't even carry his own state.
He'd been living in D.C. for over 20 years. He won D.C. by a 10 to 1 margin.
Originally posted by trumptman
Got it, so when whites wouldn't elect blacks to office that was.... bad....
And now when white will elect blacks to office that is.... bad....
Glad to see you are so clear on that.
Nick
where did i say bad asshole (or should i say trumpetupyourasshole?) or any of that?
the fact remains that george will's argument is flawed very very flawed...
and you are a strawman
Originally posted by billybobsky
where did i say bad asshole (or should i say trumpetupyourasshole?)?
the fact remains that george will's argument is flawed very very flawed...
and you are a strawman
billy
grow up please. How is it you speak of an argument as being flawed yet you use rude language towards trumptman?
I think you misread the argument myself and when you don't like "how you read the issue argued" you lose all self control.
come back in 5 years when you may have matured.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
billy
grow up please. How is it you speak of an argument as being flawed yet you use rude language towards trumptman?
I think you misread the argument myself and when you don't like "how you read the issue argued" you lose all self control.
come back in 5 years when you may have matured.
Fellowship
Fellows
actually no, i made no arguments one way or another in terms of whether electing people of other races is favorable or not (i actually stated quite the inverse, that one should always elect those that represent your issues best, in my example of electing an indian) so trumpetman assigned me an argument i did not make and thus he IS an asshole, particularly since its an argument i expressly did not make and one that offends my sensibilities deeply, so he hit a nerve and i responded, but at least i can admit that, but i doubt he will never admit he assigned an argument to me in a fashion that was both insulting and irrelevent...
maturity is a question of time and place, and i firmly believed it needed to be pointed out that TRUMPTMAN IS AN ASSHOLE.
billy (as it were)
OK so I implied it, but is that really wrong? Look at the politics of activism. Speech is so blantantly censored when the mouths speaking it are the wrong color (in both directions, when we're dealing with white and black, add brown, yellow, and red and it gets weirder still, so let's just use black and white.) America is rife with the sentiment "We need one of our own."
So this is not restricted to who elects blacks (a conclusion you drew for yourself), but why and where blacks choose to run. Think about the candidates themselves. There must be a sufficient pool of blacks for whom it makes sense to be republican if there is a new influx of black candidates throughout the party.
For the longest time we looked at the democrats as the only party for black candidates, blacks themselves would look at any republican black as an "Uncle Tom" depending on whereabouts in the country. If there are MORE black republicans coming to the fore, it's also reasonable to think that there are more black republicans in their various districts. At least moreso than in previous years. Whites might still elect them (ie make up the majority of their votes,) but there's a lot more color in that support base than there used to be, color that sees the world in a stereotypically "whiter" way perhaps -- if we want to paint black and white into money lines.
What is interesting about all this is that you have applied a very "democrat" assumption to a logistical inquiry and then criticised me for it. Cute, but not really my fault, I merely implied that Republicans would be happy to catch some of those other kinds of racist votes, along with the idea that more blacks may like republicans (regardless of reason) than many democrats would like to admit.
[political disclaimer mode] As with most things, I am a political agnostic as well [/disclaimer mode off]
Originally posted by trumptman
George Will
Democrats are about to have one of their most loyal voting blocks begin to crack. When this happens, it will be all over.
Nick
Good the hear.
NEWSFLASH: It doesn't matter. It really doesn't. Both parties are two sides of the same coin. They have the same goals, motivations, and interests. It truly doesn't matter who gets elected.
Originally posted by BR
NEWSFLASH: It doesn't matter. It really doesn't. Both parties are two sides of the same coin. They have the same goals, motivations, and interests. It truly doesn't matter who gets elected.
I couldn't disagree with you more. From where I am, there is a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. It may seem like they aren't very different at election time, but that's due to the two-party system of the US, where to win, you must pander to the moderates and move to the center. Their actions once in office show their true intentions and reveal the big differences.
If Gore was president today:
1. We would be in Kyoto.
2. CAFE standards would be higher.
3. The Patriot act would be non-existent since Ascroft wouldn't be in power.
4. No cruel and unnecessary war with Iraq. Tell those dead Iraqi civilians there's no difference.
5. We'd have the beginnings of universal health care with presciption drug coverage.
6. It's likely the Democrats would still control the senate.
7. NASA would have more money.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.