Democratic Convention 2004

[ShiftyPowers]

Originally posted by Elder
Just the fact that you say he didn't read what he voted for should say enough... Think of a President who does'nt actually read what he signs into law... come on...

Honestly, it just shows how little you actually know about American Politics. There are so many bills that are introduced every day in Congress it would take a 20 hour day to actually attempt to read everything. Many of the bills are read by trusted aides who then basically tell the Congressman how to vote. And if you think the President in his busy schedule reads every single piece of legislation that crosses his desk, you're insane.

Elder, yes there were plenty of black voters disenfranchised in the past election. My mother met a woman this week from Delaware who lives in a black district with 4 registered black democrats living in their house. The night before the election they recieved a phone call telling them that the polling station they normally go to was closed and instead they needed to report to another place. They go to the other place and guess what? There's no polling station there. They go to the normal one, there IS a polling station there and they vote. Look, this has happened since African Americans got the vote in the country and if you think it isn't an issue because you haven't seen it happen, or no one you know has had it happen to them, you're wrong. It certainly does happen.

People need to stop talking about "activist judges", yeah I resent that term too. The people who are mad are mad because now "we gotta give 'dem fudge packers equal rights!" Heh, I was watching Fox News and a woman was talking about how to stop these horrible "activist judges". She said we could write into law that judges cannot hear any challenge to the DOM Act. Guess what you dumb bitch, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the whole thing will get thrown out. Yeah, I resent that term too, without Judicial Review there is no Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. The commerce clause refers to school segregation? Really? It was a stretch and it was "judicial activism" in the utmost sense. But then again all of those people who are trying to keep gays with worse rights are the same people who were trying to keep blacks out of their schools.

Pennington....brilliant. I was listening to analysis of the Democratic National Convention and thinking, I need to run for President myself. And if someone "responds" to what I say, I'll respond right back. Like the "if Kerry didn't want families to have to raise money for their sons in Iraq to have body armour, he would have voted for the 87 billion dollars." What crap. I'd just be like "well, I didn't think we should have been in Iraq in the first place and voting against the funding was my way of protesting the involvement. Plus they got that cash regardless, so it seems like they should have solved the problem."

 

[Brondbyfan]

Dole is for the war

Dole is probably for the war because of all the lies Bush has invented about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which even you must concede do not exist. He probably also believed the lies about connections to Al Qaeda, which, after the 9/11 comission report, you must also concede did not exist. Thus, a President Dole or President McCain would not have invented these facts and lied so egregiously and so often to the American people.

ShiftyPowers, I think voting against the 87 million dollars was a way to try and reassert some control over this debacle. It would be a huge mistake to give Bush another blank check, it's throwing good money after bad. Congress needed to get some control back lest Bush continue throwing money away on his failed occupation. Fighting a war on the cheap DOESN'T WORK. He did not commit enough money or troops, plain and simple.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
Honestly, it just shows how little you actually know about American Politics. There are so many bills that are introduced every day in Congress it would take a 20 hour day to actually attempt to read everything. Many of the bills are read by trusted aides who then basically tell the Congressman how to vote. And if you think the President in his busy schedule reads every single piece of legislation that crosses his desk, you're insane.

Elder, yes there were plenty of black voters disenfranchised in the past election. My mother met a woman this week from Delaware who lives in a black district with 4 registered black democrats living in their house. The night before the election they recieved a phone call telling them that the polling station they normally go to was closed and instead they needed to report to another place. They go to the other place and guess what? There's no polling station there. They go to the normal one, there IS a polling station there and they vote. Look, this has happened since African Americans got the vote in the country and if you think it isn't an issue because you haven't seen it happen, or no one you know has had it happen to them, you're wrong. It certainly does happen.

So what if a bill is long. Their ONLY job is to do that ****. I know that aides review the bills and what not, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the person who signs the bill to know what's in it. Do you think that if I sign my name to a loan, and then say "well, it was too long and I didn't read it, so I change my mind and don't want to pay it back", that I can get away with that. I;m sorry, but I expect more from my politicians.

Well, that's a sad story about the black voters. Too bad it's just a story and not actually documented. I remember hearing about dogs scaring away voters also, but they couldn't find those people either. And I am quite sure that there was no plot to "disenfranchise" black voters in Florida. Most of the voters down there are ******* stupid anyway, so maybe it's better they don't vote. I would say a bunch of white voters were disenfranchised when the news networks called the election for Gore in the state of florida 1 hour before the polls closed in the panhandle. There are stories of people who would have gone to vote for Bush who just went home instead. I say it all evened out, and Gore still lost.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Dole is probably for the war because of all the lies Bush has invented about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which even you must concede do not exist. He probably also believed the lies about connections to Al Qaeda, which, after the 9/11 comission report, you must also concede did not exist. Thus, a President Dole or President McCain would not have invented these facts and lied so egregiously and so often to the American people.

ShiftyPowers, I think voting against the 87 million dollars was a way to try and reassert some control over this debacle. It would be a huge mistake to give Bush another blank check, it's throwing good money after bad. Congress needed to get some control back lest Bush continue throwing money away on his failed occupation. Fighting a war on the cheap DOESN'T WORK. He did not commit enough money or troops, plain and simple.

The whole world must have been lying about Iraq and their weapons then. But we really don't need to get into that argument.

If you actually read the 9/11 report, i know it's quite long..., you would see that there are documented ties between al Queda and Iraq.

I am not going to convince a democratic underground myrmidon, so I will save my fingers from typing.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

You do know that there actually has still never been a statewide full recount in Florida right? You know that there is over 100 years of precedent in Florida that the intent of the voter is what matters, not technicalities (such as not fully punching the hole, or something like that) right? The Supreme Court officially stopped the recounting and said that there was no need for an actual full recount; just because 5 judges happened to be registered Republicans. Yeah, Gore lost. Gore lost because of some major bull**** that everyone on the right immediately discounts with "stop being bitter about losing." I have never come out and said this before, but you know what, Gore would have won if the actual law was upheld; if there was a true recount. Forget about disenfranchisement, Gore would have won regardless.

....

I deleted the rest because it would have really really pissed you off and been unfair and irrelevant.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

And the "only job" of lawmakers is to attend committees, listen to experts and constituents, and be an expert in their committee. Most senators barely hear about pending bills until they are up for vote on the senate floor if it is in a different committee.

"the whole world must have been lying?" Is that why our media instantly villified the UN Weapons Inspectors when they said there was nothing in Iraq, just months before we invaded?

 

[Virgo]

I think it isn't hard to understand that even if it wasn't for the WMD's reports, sooner or later another pretext to go into Iraq would have been found. It was only a matter of time because Bush clearly seemed comitted to do it. It's done and it's just stupid to keep making up these lame excuses and blaming someone else.

Yes the world is better without Saddam, and maybe the Iraqian people will in the future (not near) have the possibily to enjoy a relative freedom, but the means involved, the harsh way the invasion was conducted and the people killed were just unnecessary.



By the way I haven't seen any of you talk about this because maybe you don't care because it doesn't affect you directly but the situation in Iraq looks everything but controlled at the moment. It really looks like the US government had no realistic plan about what to do after the invasion. Like we go in and afterwards everyone will cheer us and stuff. The truth is that people are getting killed every day, the streets aren't safe and it isn't getting better. With Saddam gone there are a number of small factions, due to the fact that the Iraqian people are a mix and that claim power and land possession. Well you don't go and blow the sh*t out of a country, get what you want and leave but I guess Bush really didn't see this coming and he seems to not be caring much as long as the oil keeps running. But is this being discussed in the US and if so what's the future?

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Virgo
Well you seem to be defending the Bush administration in every post you make.

Thats what I don't get. I mean, its a bit like saying 'I am not religious' and then using my posts up supporting Jesus Christ or something. I wouldn't waste my time.

 

[Vagegast]

I bet Bob Dole is a good guy. Clinton and Dole are like best budies and he's funny as hell.. why are we talking about Dole?

 

[Aveirenses]

Who's the other guy that's running?

I forget his name...

Anyways, I don't know what plans he has, or what he looks like, but I say vote for em'.

George Bush... is George Bush, will ignore EVERY single piece of information regarding terrorist attacks, yet he'll pay attention to anything with the word "Iraq" in it.

John Kerry... seriously? Who the **** is this guy? A guy with a big ass chin. In fact, I'm 90% sure he definitely smokes some weed before going out to say half the corny **** he says when he makes a speech, he has that weird look in his eyes.

 

[Vagegast]

Hey, I bet Jorge Sampaio is sexy enough for you..

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
You do know that there actually has still never been a statewide full recount in Florida right? You know that there is over 100 years of precedent in Florida that the intent of the voter is what matters, not technicalities (such as not fully punching the hole, or something like that) right? The Supreme Court officially stopped the recounting and said that there was no need for an actual full recount; just because 5 judges happened to be registered Republicans. Yeah, Gore lost. Gore lost because of some major bull**** that everyone on the right immediately discounts with "stop being bitter about losing." I have never come out and said this before, but you know what, Gore would have won if the actual law was upheld; if there was a true recount. Forget about disenfranchisement, Gore would have won regardless.

....

I deleted the rest because it would have really really pissed you off and been unfair and irrelevant.

Did you ever see the newspaper recounts? Yes, they all came out for Bush also... even with the "rules" that Gore wanted used. Pregnant chads, dimpled chads, votes for Buchannon... everything. HE STILL LOST under the rules that Gore wanted used, and the rules that were established by Florida law.

You always seem to forget that the Supreme Court was just overturning a very liberal, and downright embarassing Florida Supreme court ruling. You talk about the right and blah blah, "get over it", but you always leave out the important little parts that went for your side of the argument. Like, uncostitiutional rulings from the Florida Supreme Court....

Either way, I don't care anymore. If the Dems are going to run on that issue, they are going to lose. The whole thing was a mess, and if Gore would have "won" I am sure you wouldn't be bitching. No matter who won that election in the end, it would have been tainted. But, Gore justhad to win his own home state to be President... too bad he couldn't... and was the only one in recent history not to. What a fool.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Thats what I don't get. I mean, its a bit like saying 'I am not religious' and then using my posts up supporting Jesus Christ or something. I wouldn't waste my time.

You've got to have counterbalance on this left wing wackjob of a forum.

 

[Elder]

"July 31, 2004 -- SCRANTON, Pa. — John Kerry's heavily hyped cross-country bus tour stumbled out of the blocks yesterday, as a group of Marines publicly dissed the Vietnam War hero in the middle of a crowded restaurant.
Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary — an Edwards family tradition — when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions.

The Marines — two in uniform and two off-duty — were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir."

But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."

A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.

The Marines — all of whom serve at nearby Stewart Air Force Base — wouldn't give their names.



It wasn't an auspicious start to the senators' "Believe in America" bus tour — a 22-state, 43-city tour that will cover roughly 3,500 miles over 15 days in an effort to carry some of their momentum out of the Democratic convention.

But the rest of Day One went smoothly, as massive crowds — including what Kerry said were up to 20,000 in Harrisburg, Pa., — greeted him, Edwards, their families and Ben Affleck at the tour-kickoff event in Boston and at two stops in the Keystone state.

"Ninety-seven days [left in the campaign]; let's make it happen," Kerry told hundreds of bleary-eyed but upbeat supporters who showed up at a 7:30 a.m. rally on the shores of Boston Harbor — less than nine hours after Kerry finished his acceptance speech.

Kerry also employed Paul Revere's famed midnight run and imagery of Bunker Hill to bash President Bush over U.S. intelligence failures.

"These are the places where people dared to stand up and put their lives on the line — to take a risk — for something they believed in very deeply," Kerry said of the Boston neighborhood where he was speaking.

"One if by land, two if by sea, and the message was right. Come to think of it, they had better intelligence than we do today about what's going on," Kerry continued, drawing the loudest applause of the event.

In Harrisburg, Kerry noted that there was more bad news coming out of the financial markets yesterday, with oil prices reaching new highs and economic growth limping along at three percent."


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/25935.htm


The military sure loves this douchebag.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Originally posted by Elder
Did you ever see the newspaper recounts? Yes, they all came out for Bush also... even with the "rules" that Gore wanted used. Pregnant chads, dimpled chads, votes for Buchannon... everything. HE STILL LOST under the rules that Gore wanted used, and the rules that were established by Florida law.

You always seem to forget that the Supreme Court was just overturning a very liberal, and downright embarassing Florida Supreme court ruling. You talk about the right and blah blah, "get over it", but you always leave out the important little parts that went for your side of the argument. Like, uncostitiutional rulings from the Florida Supreme Court....

Either way, I don't care anymore. If the Dems are going to run on that issue, they are going to lose. The whole thing was a mess, and if Gore would have "won" I am sure you wouldn't be bitching. No matter who won that election in the end, it would have been tainted. But, Gore justhad to win his own home state to be President... too bad he couldn't... and was the only one in recent history not to. What a fool.

No, you're wrong Elder. Newspaper recounts don't mean anything. They don't have access to all of the ballots and they certainly didn't have access to all of the State's stuff. There has never been a recount in Florida, it was halted by court order. You say the Florida Supreme Court's ruling was embarassing, I say that Judge Scalia's stay on RECOUNTING BALLOTS IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION was embarassing and unconstitutional.

And you're right, I wouldn't be making a fuss if Gore won because then at least the correct person would have won the election. It obviously would still have been a problem, but at least there would have been a fair an legal recount; a recount following over a hundred years of Florida State Precedent that the Supreme Court ignored. Elections are a state matter and the Supreme Court (while it had appellate jurisdiction over the whole thing) ignored that this is a states rights issue......something Republicans and strict constructionalists like Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas believe in.

I forgot to comment on this in an earlier post, but you're right about Senators becomming President, it really is rare because all of their votes are logged. Who was the last one? Johnson I think? Maybe Nixon, but I don't think so. At least Kennedy.

 

[Vagegast]

Originally posted by Elder
The military sure loves this douchebag.

Most of the military bases aren't located in swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri or Ohio, if I remember right. I'll try and look it up.

Did you ever see the newspaper recounts? Yes, they all came out for Bush also..

This is like the fifth time you've said this. How about backing it up, otherwise we're just repeating things over and over.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
No, you're wrong Elder. Newspaper recounts don't mean anything. They don't have access to all of the ballots and they certainly didn't have access to all of the State's stuff. There has never been a recount in Florida, it was halted by court order. You say the Florida Supreme Court's ruling was embarassing, I say that Judge Scalia's stay on RECOUNTING BALLOTS IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION was embarassing and unconstitutional.

And you're right, I wouldn't be making a fuss if Gore won because then at least the correct person would have won the election. It obviously would still have been a problem, but at least there would have been a fair an legal recount; a recount following over a hundred years of Florida State Precedent that the Supreme Court ignored. Elections are a state matter and the Supreme Court (while it had appellate jurisdiction over the whole thing) ignored that this is a states rights issue......something Republicans and strict constructionalists like Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas believe in.

I forgot to comment on this in an earlier post, but you're right about Senators becomming President, it really is rare because all of their votes are logged. Who was the last one? Johnson I think? Maybe Nixon, but I don't think so. At least Kennedy.

I swear to you that the all the major media outlets did a recount of the disputed votes and Bush won every one of them. Here's a link from PBS...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

And in this case, the Supreme Court had complete jurisdiction over the case. It was a matter of certain votes being counted in a special manner... something that would have conflicted with the Consitution.

Gore didn't win...


Here's a final link to a whole page about it. All from PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Vagegast
Most of the military bases aren't located in swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri or Ohio, if I remember right. I'll try and look it up.

This is like the fifth time you've said this. How about backing it up, otherwise we're just repeating things over and over.

The military is not pro democrat. There is a reason for that... democrats tend to **** all over the miltary whenever they can. Unless they need some votes that is, then they elect John Kerry as their nominee.


I posted some links about the election things in the reply to Shifty's post. It's right above this one.

 

[Elder]

More links...

From ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/wire_ballotcount010510.html

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/alt/01/recount.html

From CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Fine Elder, you ******* asked for it.

The ABC News link says that if "the most liberal standards" are used, Gore wins. That sounds pretty negative to me, but whatever. What are these "most liberal standards"? Undervotes and Overvotes where the intention of the voter is 100% clear.

According to the Florida Supreme Court, a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter."

The Supreme Court of the United States in the Majority Opinion states many things. Here's one of them... "Florida's basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the 'intent of the voter.' This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary."

....

"A manual recount of all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category will be counted by the machine.

This is not a trivial concern. At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent."

As we saw from the articles you provided, such as the ABC News one, if the overvotes where the intent of the voter is clear, then Gore wins. According to the Majority Opinion, people who's intent is clear, but not counted by a machine, do not have the same opportunity to have their vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot clearly shows who he votes for.

Well that's strange, because the Supreme Court also says that "The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition."

So for some reason it seems like the Supreme Court agrees that it is a State's Rights issue. The State has the authority to count and recount ballots until they get it right. That's what the court said. Why then is the recount unconstitutional?

"The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment. The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects...As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another."

Wow, that's pretty flimsy to me. We shouldn't try to find the intent of the voter because the standards between counties are different. That makes great sense! Um....here's something to consider from the dissenting opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens and signed by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer..."[The Statewide Recounts] relied on the sufficiency of the general "intent of the voter" standard articulated by the state legislature, coupled with a procedure for ultimate review by an impartial judge, to resolve the concern about disparate evaluations of contested ballots. If we assume - as I do - that the members of that court and the judges who would have carried out its mandate are impartial, its decision does not even raise a colorable federal question."

Continuing

"What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land."

But if we even agree that the recount going ahead was unconstitutional, why couldn't we have went ahead with a constitutional recount?

"Justice Breyer's proposed remedy - remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18 - contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. Section102.168(8) (2000). "

But the majority also says this "a desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees."

Wow. Kind of a dick move. The election should have been Gore's and that is true. More from Justice Stevens...

"In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent - and are therefore legal votes under state law but were for some reason rejected by ballot - counting machines. It does so on the basis of the deadlines set forth in Title 3 of the United States Code.

But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines."

Actually Elder, Justice Stevens' dissention is a pretty good read if you're interested.

I'll leave everyone with one last thing, it's not really vital, but surely interesting; from Stevens' dissention....

. . . there is no reason to think that the guidance provided to the fact-finders, specifically the various canvassing boards, by the "intent of the voter" standard is any less sufficient - or will lead to results any less uniform - than, for example, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard employed everyday by ordinary citizens in courtrooms across this country. Admittedly, the use of differing substandards for deter-mining voter intent in different counties employing similar voting systems may raise serious concerns.

Those concerns are alleviated - if not eliminated - by the fact that a single impartial magistrate will ultimately adjudicate all objections arising from the recount process. Of course, as a general matter, "the interpretation of constitutional principles must not be too literal. We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints."

If it were otherwise, Florida s decision to leave to each county the determination of what balloting system to employ - despite enormous differences in accuracy - might run afoul of equal protection.