posted
Look, just give Bush the presidency. If he royally screws up the job, well that's what the 4 year term is for. I highly doubt he'd do anything too far right in his lawmaking. After all, if 1/2 voted for him, that must mean 1/2 voted against, and the last thing Bush will want to do is to alienate even more people.
Democrats: Nobody likes a sore loser Republicans: Even fewer like sore winners ------------------ "Life sucks, then you die"
[This message has been edited by USS Vanguard (edited November 10, 2000).]
posted
>"We're talking about people of normal intelligence, but they don't feel compelled to pay enough attention to what they're doing, or they just can't be bothered to take the time to actually use their brains, and then they expect to be compensated for their own dumb mistakes."
TSN! You just stated the entirety of the Democratic/liberal position!
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Y'know, sometimes I think 'Wow, that First guy is quite knowledgable and informed.' but when you spew shit like this, I'm thinking you may be "informed", but you sure as fuck don't act it with all your blanket, ignorant and shallow comments.
Is it really necessary to slam Democrats in every fucking post?
Last time I checked, most democrats here don't start their posts with "Piece of shit extreme-conservative fudge-packing WASP jizz swallowing second ammendment spouting motherfuckers."
Informed, perhaps. Tolerant, No.
------------------ Communism. Who wouldn't like their neighbour thrown into a goulag?
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
From a friend who also happens t'be a former newsman & until a few months ago, a denizen of Tejas
Greetings My Fellow Americans!
I wholeheartedly *disagree* with Weez [on disbanding the Electoral College & going digital for voting -Ed.]. With all of what is going on, the current situation clearly shows it would be *impossible* to "recount" votes from a computer system, especially if the computer system either:
1) failed, 2) crashed, 3) corrupted the data, or 4) was hacked.
It would also be *incredibly* expensive to fund the hardware AND software!
This may be the age of computing, but computing has yet to reach the age of reliability. For evidence, I submit the questions: "Have you EVER lost data or suffered a computer crash, either in a session or with the entire harddrive?" "Have you ever had a trojan or a virus or suffered from a hacker?" If you have, you should be able to clearly see my point.
On a more ominous note, what if a terrorist got control of a nuclear device and used it on election night 2004 near the clearinghouse of the vote count? The EMP or ElectoMagneticPulse could wipe out all the data in an instant. The way it is now, albeit "old-fashioned," all the votes aren't in one place. Or suppose a group of hackers gained *complete* access to the computerized vote count? Granted, those aren't *likely* scenarios, but the whole impetus of our country's security is based on "unlikely scenarios." Most people call being prepared for unknown threats "smart."
Indeed, the process going on now is truly the "American Way." It's exciting! The votes are being counted and verified, and the people will just have to wait. I personally see no need for us to KNOW who the President will be this instant. We can all wait a few days--or weeks.
In 1960, Richard Nixon (in his first Republican bid for office) went berserk when he lost the election to Kennedy, calling for recounts and threatening legal action in countless districts--and the vote wasn't nearly as close as this one today. When it was all said and done, we learned Nixon was out and JFK was in. The country didn't shut down. Children didn't die as a result. And no one invaded the USA. The Democrats have a RIGHT to question returns, as do the Republicans--and they are talking about recounts in states other than Florida AND legal action as well. So, let's not be so damn quick to point a finger and cry "unfair!" What you see going on now is NOT one-sided. It's all-American!
My point is, there is nothing wrong with verifying the vote. It's the FAIR way to proceed--and it's the law of the land. Both parties know the rules (although it seems the average Joe or Jane doesn't seem to know the rules). Please don't fall for the spin doctor versions of *either* party. The vote is *extremely* close and literally *millions* of votes in many states are not tallied. When they are tallied, we may be surprised to see SEVERAL states flip to the other candidate! Florida may have nothing to do with the final popular OR electoral count! And some members of the electoral kollege may vote completely different from what their states have voted in the general election!! It's happened before, it will happen again, and it could happen on this one.
Wow, huh?
The vote has been taken. It's the accounting of the vote that needs to be complete-- and verified. And that is it. Those who gripe about the process should move AWAY and try another country. Let's be patient. Let's be fair. Let's know for sure.
Red ; ) <-----exiting soapbox
------------------ "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much."
posted
Funny, I was under the distinct impression that Nixon was advised to call for recounts, but DIDN'T, because it wouldn't have been good for the country...
------------------ Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto. Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think? Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
...there seems to be a bit of confusion about this whole ballot issue.
My understanding was that the Sample Ballot mailed out had a DIFFERENT ORDER than the final ballot.
If that is indeed the case, then I can understand that greatly. The CA Sample Ballots clearly say that you should fill it out first, then copy ALL YOUR SELECTIONS over to your final ballot rather than make your decisions at the polling place.
If the order was different on the final ballot as I have understood to this point, that would surely explain this whole mess.
(Of course, the CA ballots are totally different than the FL ballots - ours is a card in which we punch out holes w/ numbers...)
------------------ "Uh, Cody, what has the Mullah of Cappistan been smoking?" "MILKSHAKES. I HAVE BEEN SMOKING MILKSHAKES!"
posted
That just means you should decide ahead of time that you want to vote for, say, Gore, and mark that down. Then, when you get to the polling place, just look at your paper, see you're voting for Gore, and mark Gore on the ballot. It doesn't mean that you should decide to vote for Gore, mark the second spot on the sample, and then alos mark the second spot on the real ballot, w/o even bothering to look at the names.
As for the suggestion that I'm a Democrat, I take offense at it. I do not subscribe to the lack of independent thought which is the political party system.
And about the idea of storing the results in a computer, and its being cracked... Well, that'd be kind of hard, if the computer weren't connected to the outside world. Sure, if you plug it up to an Internet connection, you may have a problem. But as long as it, or whatever network it may be on, never touches a phone line or other such connection, someone would have to actually be right there to crack it...
------------------ "What he did to that walrus gentle-man was inexcusable." -T. Herman Zweibel on "Mr. Woodrow Wood-pecker", The Onion, 7-Nov-2000
posted
Last time I checked, most democrats here don't start their posts with "Piece of shit extreme-conservative fudge-packing WASP jizz swallowing second ammendment spouting motherfuckers."
No, that's far more YOUR tone of voice. Which mine never approached. Hell, those weren't even MY words!
And it's not slander, as it's a legitimate opinion, which I'm all too willing to argue.
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Alleged voting irregularities, ranging from homeless Milwaukee men offered cigarettes in exchange for Gore votes and a �help yourself� stack of ballots at a Milwaukee polling place, could encourage the Bush campaign to request a recount, Wisconsin Republican Party spokesman Mick Walters said.
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Of course, if someone had the wherewithal to detonate a thermonuclear device in order to take out the election results, they could just as easily use it to take out whoever was elected directly. Or, in fact, the electors themselves. Well, some small fraction of them.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
